Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

The Mogamis i believe have a strong mine warfare capability. Im sure i read the second ship was being arranged under the mine warfare force.
But could you expand the mogami buy as the multi role patrol frigate AND the 132metre mine warfare vessel?

Mogamis have a bow mounted sonar and towed array and can operate a MH60R and carry torpedo's. Half the crew of an Anzac, more air defence (16vls), 5" and just one helo, 8 antiship and still have a CIWS. IMO for a country like New Zealand, they could replace their two Anzacs with four Mogamis, use their existing crew, put a helo on each ship. They would end up with a fleet of four combat ships, rather than a fleet of two, with much the same man power requirement. Similar size and similar purpose. If they wanted to grow, they could maybe get a 5th ship, and it would be a smaller growth increment for them.

Im not sure they are such a good fit for Australia, we don't really need 16 Anzac type ships. I don't think 2 mogamis instead of 1 Hunter is a great swap, and Australia could operate 9-12 Hunters fairly easily.

Also consideration should be given to how RAN vessels are to be home ported. Should there be a East fleet and a West fleet? If so, what should the responsibilities of the two (or more, depends on how things are to be organized) fleets?

Definately. If we want to be able to close the straits, then we will need an East/West fleet structure.

To my thinking, it would likely make more sense to bring the Hobart-class DDG replacement programme forward and build a half-dozen or more of these, to provide extra area air defence capabilities beyond what is possible with only having three such vessels.

Unfortunately no one is committing to building these for funds we have, and committing that three of such vessels would be available before 2030. Even if they did, they would still be an impost because the Hobarts aren't going away. We commissioned HMAS Sydney last year! Have spent $9 billion to build them, and another $5b to upgrade them, so $14b in total. So if you disposed of all 3 current hobarts (and throw $14b in the bin + crew training and 5 years operation + industry investment and support), you now need 6 new ships + deep experienced crews for them, before 2030. This is just absolutely impossible. Not to mention, throwing away Australia's newest, most expensive and most capable defence assets.

Any Hobart replacement program would be +10 years if based off a current in service hull. More if we want to base it off the Type 26 hull and concepts. We are talking 2040's not 2030's. Hunter with type 26 was selected in 2018 after the tenders were open in 2016. Here we are just about to start 2023.

Everything is now focused on before 2030.

• To the point that projects that deliver capability post 2030 will start having their budgets zero'd and shelved. Perhaps not just military projects either.
• Anything that isn't sovereign sustainable, to look at being cut or made sovereign sustainable by 2030. RAAF is panic stations.
• Anything that is "new" and promising capability before 2030 better be a fixed price contract with penalties paid in capability, not in dollars.

If the US can't deliver F-35's, then the USAF will deliver their F-35's instead. If Spain can't deliver 3 destroyers by 2030, then they will deliver 3 destroyers until that capability arrives. If Lurrsen is promising 6 corvettes by 2030, then if it can't deliver, then the Germany Navy will deliver 6 of their corvettes, with crew until the capability arrives. In addition, Australia may seek capability now, today on a lease type arrangement to accelerate training and development. If we look at what is being mentioned with submarines and homeporting, but widen that to basically everything.

In this type of world, it is now much harder to acquire new platforms, even if they are already floating in the water. No one is looking at ambitious new programs and paper ships that will deliver capability in 2035. Everything is shifted to near term capability, of existing platforms that are currently in service with the ADF. No new long tender/selection processes. There isn't time to build dreams and hopes.

Efforts are instead being focused on what is possible in the near term.

Navantia's proposal is that effectively they are the same ships, require the same training, supported by the same contractors and industry network, provide the same capability as the existing platforms by the same team that is already doing this for the Hobart's that have already been locally working for the last 5 years of operations. No tender, no selection, not building from scratch. I guess we will have to see what RAND says. If they say its doable, then Australia is getting 3 additional destroyers. We aren't sending it to RAND to then reject it if they say it green to go.

Subs fall into a different capability, but same sort of concepts. We might get plenty of subs, as they open their letter of last resort.

 

[Takao]

This article from Crikey states some that the Auditor-General found that the defence department was unable to explain why there was under reporting to the public and industry of the real costs to the then submarine and future frigate programs to a total of 36 billion dollars,
Incompetent, deceptive or both: why did defence hide the real cost of its submarines and ships? (msn.com)

@seaspear - absolutely not a dig at you...

But... anyone who still sees the $50 b / $80 b bill for SEA1000 as a 'gotcha' moment shows that they should not be considered for any further discussions on finance, let alone defence. The number is the same; one is in constant 2016 dollars; the other is in out-turned dollars (meaning, for those who don't know, inflation is taken into account).

This has been shown at a couple of Senate Estimates, and it stems from the Department (political and military sides) not being clear when publicly talking. There are reasons to use both, but generally speaking we use constant internally (so we can shift efforts across years as needed) and the Government (ie, every Department including Defence) uses outturned.

 

[Morgo]

Responding here as the content is really much more RAN-centric vs. overall ADF kit and structure.



Rather than getting hung up on what one things should be ordered (kit-focused approach) how about approaching the potential issue from the perspective of what capabilities the RAN would need to have available, and then determine what types of kit are needed and in what quantities?

Also consideration should be given to how RAN vessels are to be home ported. Should there be a East fleet and a West fleet? If so, what should the responsibilities of the two (or more, depends on how things are to be organized) fleets?

I ask these questions because in order to reliably create and deploy vessels, there needs to be certain minimum numbers of hulls. The Hobart-class DDG's are an unfortunately good example of what I mean. With only three DDG's, and going off the cycles for training and pre/post-deployment, maintenance repair & upgrades, as well as deployment or available for deployment, with only three such vessels in the fleet, there would only reliably be a single DDG either on a deployment or available for deployment if/when needed. If all three DDG's are based in different locations, that could making forming a proper TF escort for high value assets difficult and/or time consuming as vessels would need to transit to different locations to be where needed.

Now IMO, having the RAN get short/small class sizes of vessel for anything other than high value vessels is at best short-sighted, and goes down hill from there rather swiftly. To that end, I would be opposed to the RAN even attempting to get another three of the so-called "Hobart II" DDG's and that would be just another short class with little commonality across the RAN. To my thinking, it would likely make more sense to bring the Hobart-class DDG replacement programme forward and build a half-dozen or more of these, to provide extra area air defence capabilities beyond what is possible with only having three such vessels.

Given the increasing tensions which do not really seem to show signs of abating, I think it is necessary for the RAN to expand, the question becomes where, how, and by how much.

Suggest need

One - 24 / 7 / 365 constabulary tasking around our coast with particular emphasis to our north. As to distance from coast I'd appreciate
some advice

Two - The ability to have a sovereign capability to put together a small task force that can conduct offensive operations within our region against a near peer. This would be able to dominate the ASW realm and be able to dominate with protective land based air support.

Three - The ability to work with and integrate with our allies.

Four - the ability to carry and land an amphibious battalion sized battle group ( Non contested ) within our region.

Five - The ability to have a regional superior submarine capability 24 / 7 /365 of at least two boats.

The above are very broad suggestions without much detail within each group ,but it is an overview only.


Some of the above would reflect current capabilities with vessels on hand.
Some would need additions to current inventory.


Thanks S

For what it’s worth, my thinking is as follows:


I am not sure a single task force is sufficient. I am not sure two subs are sufficient. If we are at war, and we want to keep our SLOCs open, and disrupt those of the Chinese I think we need to, at any given time, have a persistent, credible naval presence in the following areas:

1) In the approaches to the Malacca, Sunda and Lombok straits. Expect that the supporting assets (ie the ships) could be forward deployed / refueled / rearmed from Cocos / Keeling and Christmas Is, and home ported at FBW.

2) In eastern Melanesia, particularly the Arafura, Phillippine and Bismarck Seas. Forward deployed to Darwin, Townsville & Manus, homeported at FBE.

3) In western Melanesia. Forward deployed to Townsville & Manus, homeported at FBE.

4) In the SCS, homeported at either FBE or FBW.

A “credible” presence to me would consist of 2x Hunter, 1x DDG and 1x SSN/SSK in each of areas 1-3, and 1x SSN/SSK in area 4. I don’t think anything above the water will be survivable for long inside the first island chain.

Working backwards, that would imply 6 Hunters, 3 DDGs and 4 SSK / SSN available at any given time. Using the rule of three, that gives you a total fleet of 18 (!) Hunters, 9 DDGs and 12 subs. This is what I believe we need to secure ourselves, and that this is achievable in the long term (say over the next 20 years). It would also not be unsuitable for the size and wealth of nation Australia is likely to become.

I don’t see a role for corvettes in this force structure, hence my objections to them.

I do see the potential for maybe replacing 6 of the Hunters / 3 of the DDGs with Mogami / other modernised ANZAC equivalents if you wanted to make this more affordable, but this is a suboptimal solution.

Perhaps you could reduce the number of hulls as well using the logic @Volkodav set out ie if the rule of three is not set in stone.

Perhaps you could reduce the number of hulls by having a combined force operating in areas 2 & 3. But this is a very big area and I’m not sure you want to stretch forces any further than needed.

Happy to be told where my logic needs correction.

EDIT: Fixed a typo or two.

 

[DDG38]

*sigh* I've been reading all these posts about expanding ship & sub numbers to build TF sizes & numbers etc for over a week, yet not one of you has mentioned the elephant in the room. People.
Read these articles :
ADF boost hard to achieve without overhaul of recruitment and retention policies
Defence facing a recruitment ‘crisis’: Marles
New perks on offer as Defence sounds alarm on military staff recruitment and retention
Defence appoints Adecco Australia to deliver Australian Defence Force targets
Even if you get to magically find shipyards & funding to get these extra platforms, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAN THEM ? If you haven't noticed, there's a huge recruitment issue right now in this country affecting most job sectors, so perhaps it's worth taking a step back from your platform shopping and speculate on how you would find the extra ship's company to expand the current fleet size. Otherwise everything else is just a fantasy fleet circle jerk. /rant

 

[Morgo]

*sigh* I've been reading all these posts about expanding ship & sub numbers to build TF sizes & numbers etc for over a week, yet not one of you has mentioned the elephant in the room. People.
Read these articles :
ADF boost hard to achieve without overhaul of recruitment and retention policies
Defence facing a recruitment ‘crisis’: Marles
New perks on offer as Defence sounds alarm on military staff recruitment and retention
Defence appoints Adecco Australia to deliver Australian Defence Force targets
Even if you get to magically find shipyards & funding to get these extra platforms, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAN THEM ? If you haven't noticed, there's a huge recruitment issue right now in this country affecting most job sectors, so perhaps it's worth taking a step back from your platform shopping and speculate on how you would find the extra ship's company to expand the current fleet size. Otherwise everything else is just a fantasy fleet circle jerk. /rant

You are, of course, absolutely right. Sadly I don’t have any easy solutions, other than to throw lots of money at the problem.

Surely this is not an insurmountable problem if you’re talking about a 20 year time frame though?

I’d also note that the current problems are significantly attributable to current economic conditions, with unemployment at its lowest rate in living memory and the economy operating well beyond capacity. It won’t be like this forever.

Without getting too far off topic, we’re likely heading into a pretty nasty recession in the near term. I’d expect a career in the ADF will look substantially more attractive in the coming years.

 

[Volkodav]

*sigh* I've been reading all these posts about expanding ship & sub numbers to build TF sizes & numbers etc for over a week, yet not one of you has mentioned the elephant in the room. People.
Read these articles :
ADF boost hard to achieve without overhaul of recruitment and retention policies
Defence facing a recruitment ‘crisis’: Marles
New perks on offer as Defence sounds alarm on military staff recruitment and retention
Defence appoints Adecco Australia to deliver Australian Defence Force targets
Even if you get to magically find shipyards & funding to get these extra platforms, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAN THEM ? If you haven't noticed, there's a huge recruitment issue right now in this country affecting most job sectors, so perhaps it's worth taking a step back from your platform shopping and speculate on how you would find the extra ship's company to expand the current fleet size. Otherwise everything else is just a fantasy fleet circle jerk. /rant

You also need platforms to hone taught skills, and old and bold hands to train and mentor the new people. It takes three to five years to train a competent anything, ten to fifteen to get a highly proficient leader, (read your senior non commissioned officer, middle ranking officer).

The RAN is now churning out CPOs and Commanders in their early to mid 30s, they are stars, but they still need platforms to learn on, and experienced people to learn from. We need to grow the number of platforms and number of people to have the critical mass to train more.

During the first mining construction boom two ANZACs were used for training, one along side at Cerberus, one for sea training. Through until the 90s the RAN had dedicated training ships, including in each major reserve port.

It's all a bit chicken and egg, no easy solutions. But the thing is, if we aren't recruiting now, training now, building/acquiring now, we will not be able to maintain current levels, let alone grow.

There is another factor, professionalisation, I get the feeling this has become an embuggerance because so much of it has been farmed out that it has impaired defences ability to certify its own people as competent. There are now external bodies telling defence some of their best people aren't good enough and that some of their worst are stars. Defence has to a degree lost the ability to grow its own people efficiently and effectively.

As an aside, recruiting and retention is boosted by the acquisition of shiny new kit, and hurt by crappy old kits as well as poorly executed acquisitions.

 

[Volkodav]

Lots of thoughts going through my mind.

Way back before WWI Fraser envisioned a RN with no traditional fleet cruisers or battleships, only battlecruisers that would be larger, better protected and better armed than battleships, supported by scouts, destroyers and submarines. Sound familiar, this is what those pushing for only high end are saying.

Between the wars the RAN was envisioned as a cruiser and sloop navy, with little investment in destroyers or submarines, while aviation would be looked after by the RAAF. Others are suggesting this.

Post war the RN looked at combining destroyers and cruisers into one type of ship, called the cruiser/destroyer, but ended up with no cruisers, some destroyers and mostly frigates. Again.....

We go around and around in circles talking platforms when the issue is capability. The RAN is getting very smart in terms of cross platform systems, training synergies, employment strategies but there is push back.

All major platforms, and the Arafuras are getting SAAB 9LV CMS and we have people in uniform, the bureaucracy and elsewhere saying, "It's a waste of resources, they don't know what to do with it, it's overkill etc." There is a real danger going forward that there will be efforts to disable or remove a lot of this in the name of efficiency or cost savings. Basically they are pushing for simple, dumb platforms that we buy off the shelf, use as is and go buy new ones when they wear out. They offer nothing over what they were bought to do and everything else needs to fit around them and cover their limitations.

The thing is, every ship with cross platform systems is a cradle for growing operators and maintainers of those systems. Every platform becomes a cross platform training vessel. You could literally wack a simulation function on any 9LV equipped ship and allow PWOs and CSOs to maintain currency while away from majors, while training / coaching, junior sailors and officers in same. Throw in common auxiliaries and related diesels your maintainers are covered too.

I'm sick of this, we need frigates and patrol boat but no opvs, or we need to arm our opvs, we need to replace our destroyers, we needs battleships, no we need upgraded Hobart's, no we need Constellations...

What we need are capabilities that are generated by an appropriate mix and number of platforms, crewed and supported by trained and competent personnel. Chopping and changing, failing to discuss plan and acquire capability is interfering with this.

What we also need to do is plan for the future as capabilities are being acquired. As we a building/buying and introducing into service, we very much should be looking at what upgrades, modernisations a, supplements and replacements are needed or appropriate.

Just look at every platform the RAN has had. Other than a few very limited inflexible exceptions, what was retired was a very different beast to what was acquired a decade two or three earlier. Some of the changes were so extensive it arguably would have been better value for money to have built or acquired a new platform and retired / sold the old much earlier.

Not saying no to a bad idea is just as bad as stopping a good idea, the worst thing is doing nothing.

 

[John Fedup]

Lots of thoughts going through my mind.

Way back before WWI Fraser envisioned a RN with no traditional fleet cruisers or battleships, only battlecruisers that would be larger, better protected and better armed than battleships, supported by scouts, destroyers and submarines. Sound familiar, this is what those pushing for only high end are saying.

Between the wars the RAN was envisioned as a cruiser and sloop navy, with little investment in destroyers or submarines, while aviation would be looked after by the RAAF. Others are suggesting this.

Post war the RN looked at combining destroyers and cruisers into one type of ship, called the cruiser/destroyer, but ended up with no cruisers, some destroyers and mostly frigates. Again.....

We go around and around in circles talking platforms when the issue is capability. The RAN is getting very smart in terms of cross platform systems, training synergies, employment strategies but there is push back.

All major platforms, and the Arafuras are getting SAAB 9LV CMS and we have people in uniform, the bureaucracy and elsewhere saying, "It's a waste of resources, they don't know what to do with it, it's overkill etc." There is a real danger going forward that there will be efforts to disable or remove a lot of this in the name of efficiency or cost savings. Basically they are pushing for simple, dumb platforms that we buy off the shelf, use as is and go but new ones when they wear out. They offer nothing over what they were bought to do and everything else needs to fit around them and cover their limitations.

The thing is, every ship with cross platform systems is a cradle for growing operators and maintainers of those systems. Every platform becomes a cross platform training vessel. You could literally wack a simulation function on any 9LV equipped ship and allow PWOs and CSOs to maintain currency while away from majors, while training / coaching, junior sailors and officers in same. Throw in common auxiliaries and related diesels your maintainers are covered too.

I'm sick of this, we need frigates and patrol boat but no opvs, or we need to arm our opvs, we need to replace our destroyers, we needs battleships, no we need upgraded Hobart's, no we need Constellations...

What we need are capabilities that are generated by an appropriate mix and number of platforms, crewed and supported by trained and competent personnel. Chopping and changing, failing to discuss plan and acquire capability is interfering with this.

What we also need to do is plan for the future as capabilities are being acquired. As we a building/buying and introducing into service, we very much should be looking at what upgrades, modernisations a, supplements and replacements are needed or appropriate.

Just look at every platform the RAN has had. Other than a few very limited inflexible exceptions, what was retired was a very different beast to what was acquired a decade two or three earlier. Some of the changes were so extensive it arguably would have been better value for money to have built or acquired a new platform and retired / sold the old much earlier.

Not saying no to a bad idea is just as bad as stopping a good idea, the worst thing is doing nothing.

Good point about common stuff on platforms. The RCN's LM CMS (Lite) is being installed on both the AOPS and eventually on the JSSs. Add in the hopefully 15 CSC ships, that is a good number of hardware/software CMS installs to justify a pool of trained support personnel.

 

[hauritz]

*sigh* I've been reading all these posts about expanding ship & sub numbers to build TF sizes & numbers etc for over a week, yet not one of you has mentioned the elephant in the room. People.
Read these articles :
ADF boost hard to achieve without overhaul of recruitment and retention policies
Defence facing a recruitment ‘crisis’: Marles
New perks on offer as Defence sounds alarm on military staff recruitment and retention
Defence appoints Adecco Australia to deliver Australian Defence Force targets
Even if you get to magically find shipyards & funding to get these extra platforms, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAN THEM ? If you haven't noticed, there's a huge recruitment issue right now in this country affecting most job sectors, so perhaps it's worth taking a step back from your platform shopping and speculate on how you would find the extra ship's company to expand the current fleet size. Otherwise everything else is just a fantasy fleet circle jerk. /rant

Manpower levels is indeed a problem and it may eventually come down to getting better value out of the defence force personnel we already have.
That means better more capable ships rather than more ships.
This is in fact the path that Australia is embarking on but we also need raw numbers.
I would like to say that Australia’s defence planners are already on top of this but let’s face it, their track record isn’t good.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What we need are capabilities that are generated by an appropriate mix and number of platforms, crewed and supported by trained and competent personnel. Chopping and changing, failing to discuss plan and acquire capability is interfering with this.

Australia spends a lot of time & money chasing unicorn platforms. Sea1000, Sea4000, Sea5000..

But the government has already announced that we are expanding the ADF. Army, Navy and Airforce.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2022-03-10/defence-workforce-grow-above-100000

One of the main reasons it is getting harder to man platforms, is STEM. STEM is open collapse in schools globally. In STEM you are either right or wrong. There are shortages of Maths and physical science teachers and computer teachers and industrial arts teachers, globally. Unqualified teachers are used to fill this gap and are expected to "upskill and retrain" via a 6 months part time course. You can't make up for 10 years of STEM education with a 6 months retraining course.

The abolishment of manufacturing also hurt STEM in developed nations, as STEM jobs were often attached to manufacturing. So there is also a desperate attempt to bring STEM teachers in from overseas, who have zero local experience and relevant knowledge. STEM is hard, requires continuous learning, so it hard to study, so with high risk employment prospects, a limited number of positions, we have seen female participation drop, we have seen those from working class backgrounds drop, those from public schools drop in subject selection and university and trade course enrolment, or/and have low retention outcomes.

The collapse of the merchant marine is another area, where sailors could come or go to outside of service.

The STEM graduates we make are typically international students. They aren't particularly interested in signing up for the defence force for a lower paid career filled with national pride, and the defence force is not seen as particularly receptive to those being in it.

The bulk of the Australian student population have increasingly less exposure to STEM and lower STEM outcomes, we can see this in the sliding PISA results. This makes the defence force a less of a fit for general student populations, as defence typically requires reasonable levels of understanding mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology. Students will struggle in aptitude and inclination in defence. Most students want to rebel against authority, not sign up for a 7+ year careers. So where are your massive intake of entry of school leavers?

Also in a world of 4 day work weeks, working from home, Defence is going to be a hard sell for professionals. However, young people typically tend to be more mission/cause focused. But a lot of the fun, comradery, special experiences seem to be missing from the ADF. How family friendly is the ADF as an employer these days where both parents work, in the ADF?

There was talk about establishing a technical primary and high school at Richmond in Sydney, for the ADF employees at Richmond airbase, that was going to offer superior education, child minding and closer partnerships with Defence and Defence people. However, that fell apart, apparently they couldn't find the teachers or the money to fund it. So they just made the local high school selective, sort of.

Same for Navy. How do you make family work with both parents deployed on ship and in career with Navy? How do you improve your qualifications in civy land while on a ship or boat deployed.

Seems like at the moment the ADF is doing its best to get rid of quality people, and make sure there aren't platforms for them to base a career around either. Subs, frigates, destroyers all out of the water for upgrades this decade, on top of being either already upgrades or out of the water or late to build anyway. Is joining the navy today going to give you a career you want?

The irony is air/sea/army cadets are completely packed. You have to register your child at birth to basically get into any of these in the major cities. Probably first place we should look to expand are these and other military aligned organisations. Sea scouts/Scouts used to be a key learning space for those who were interested in cadets or military service. Learn basic bush skills, navigation, ropes, etc. But these days they have moved away from being a near paramilitary organisation, to being a community service based one.

If we want more people in defence, then you have to increase the number of people suitable for a career in defence.

 

[Pusser01]

During the first mining construction boom two ANZACs were used for training, one along side at Cerberus, one for sea training. Through until the 90s the RAN had dedicated training ships, including in each major reserve port.

Just a minor quibble mate, which mining boom are you referring to? I'm not aware of any of the current Anzac class ever being based anywhere other than FBE & FBW. The only ships based near Cerberus over the last 30 years has been Seahorse Spirit, actually berthed at Westernport. The hulk of the ex-Bayonet was moored alongside Cerberus for alongside training until she was scuttled in 1999. Cheers.

 

[Volkodav]

Just a minor quibble mate, which mining boom are you referring to? I'm not aware of any of the current Anzac class ever being based anywhere other than FBE & FBW. The only ships based near Cerberus over the last 30 years has been Seahorse Spirit, actually berthed at Westernport. The hulk of the ex-Bayonet was moored alongside Cerberus for alongside training until she was scuttled in 1999. Cheers.

This was the plan in mining construction boom 1 late 2000s. It was the plan but to be honest I was more concerned about subs then so don't know it it happened or not to be honest.

Subs were being laid up at the time due to lack of crew while surface ships were looking at how to push more trainees through.

 

[ddxx]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but interesting to see TKMS appears to be interested.

Germans circle navy’s corvette warship plan

Their MEKO A-100 Light Frigate is quite an impressive platform - It'd be my pick from their relevant offerings.

Corvettes & Light Frigates

 

[Todjaeger]

*sigh* I've been reading all these posts about expanding ship & sub numbers to build TF sizes & numbers etc for over a week, yet not one of you has mentioned the elephant in the room. People.
Read these articles :
ADF boost hard to achieve without overhaul of recruitment and retention policies
Defence facing a recruitment ‘crisis’: Marles
New perks on offer as Defence sounds alarm on military staff recruitment and retention
Defence appoints Adecco Australia to deliver Australian Defence Force targets
Even if you get to magically find shipyards & funding to get these extra platforms, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MAN THEM ? If you haven't noticed, there's a huge recruitment issue right now in this country affecting most job sectors, so perhaps it's worth taking a step back from your platform shopping and speculate on how you would find the extra ship's company to expand the current fleet size. Otherwise everything else is just a fantasy fleet circle jerk. /rant

The above is in part why I would be interested in looking at what are the capabilities needed and in what quantities, as this should drive what a future RAN fleet would look like, which would then drive what the personnel requirements would be.

Relating to to this, I would expect any potential programmes started now to be a decade or more before lead ships actually enter service. So this would also provide time and opportunity to recruit and expand the RAN, as well as training personnel for roles appropriate for whatever would be in RAN service then.

 

[ddxx]

The above is in part why I would be interested in looking at what are the capabilities needed and in what quantities, as this should drive what a future RAN fleet would look like, which would then drive what the personnel requirements would be.

Relating to to this, I would expect any potential programmes started now to be a decade or more before lead ships actually enter service. So this would also provide time and opportunity to recruit and expand the RAN, as well as training personnel for roles appropriate for whatever would be in RAN service then.

Official target for RAN active, full-time personnel is already public - as per the new minister briefing I linked to a while back. It’s many thousands above today within ~15 years.

Which is even more significant given total RAN personnel is currently already higher than anytime in the last two or more decades.

On a different note, I think it’s important to remember that addressing and improving retention is something to be tackled in any scenario. Whether the goal is to maintain, reduce or grow active numbers, you want to nail retention as it reduces operational costs - recruitment and training is bloody expensive in both time and money.

 

[Redlands18]

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but interesting to see TKMS appears to be interested.

Germans circle navy’s corvette warship plan

Their MEKO A-100 Light Frigate is quite an impressive platform - It'd be my pick from their relevant offerings.

Corvettes & Light Frigates

If Australia is in the market for 12 Corvettes in the 90-105m class then every ship designer in Western Europe, ROK and Japan will throw up their choices.
All MEKO products are going to be in the box seat though as they are ultimately Lurssen products.

 

[Meriv90]

At this point, if the need for Australia is mainly of urgency it would be hard but the best solution would be an EPC Australian version.
Something like in Beautiful mind

You get 3 Corvettes from Spain, 3 from France, 3 Italy, 3 Denmark. This way you differentiate risk from producers, we get economies of scale. If you want to differentiate on price and save money you can put in the mix Greece.

Since every producer later will have to produce its own EPC the small number of hulls per each producer gets just integrated in the overall image of the full EPC program.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Very convenient for European shipyards ( even if they had free slots ).
Kind of pointless for Royal Australian Navy.
Non-sense for Australian industry.

 

[seaspear]

With regards to the R.A.N submarine fleet ,these articles suggests other options that are being considered and their benefits certainly cheaper.
Britain awards contract for large crewless submarine (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
The Navy Just Ordered the 'Orca,' an Extra-Large Unmanned Submarine by Boeing (popularmechanics.com)
This article suggests that the unmanned craft being considered for the R.A.N will be possibly used as bridging the gap between the Collins class and nuclear submarines with ability in intelligence gathering ,the R.Ns Cetus drone will be capable of operating at greater depths than the regular fleet
Australian Unmanned Submarines Are On The Way (overtdefense.com)

 

[Morgo]

With regards to the R.A.N submarine fleet ,these articles suggests other options that are being considered and their benefits certainly cheaper.
Britain awards contract for large crewless submarine (ukdefencejournal.org.uk)
The Navy Just Ordered the 'Orca,' an Extra-Large Unmanned Submarine by Boeing (popularmechanics.com)
This article suggests that the unmanned craft being considered for the R.A.N will be possibly used as bridging the gap between the Collins class and nuclear submarines with ability in intelligence gathering ,the R.Ns Cetus drone will be capable of operating at greater depths than the regular fleet
Australian Unmanned Submarines Are On The Way (overtdefense.com)

I imagine this is very much an “as well as” rather than an “instead of” capability though?