Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Volkodav]

In regards to HMAS Melbourne I clearly remember the new ALP Def Min, Gordon Scholes, made the announcement in March 1983 regarding the cancellation of the project, that is a historical fact (I still have a newspaper cutting from the time filed away somewhere too).

To roll the clock back a bit further, I also clearly remember under the Whitlam ALP Government, the new Def Min, Lance Barnard, canceled the RANs DDL project in mid to late 1973.

Cancelling Defence projects is not a ‘disease’ of just one side of politics, it has happened on both sides.

As for SEA 1000, well clearly there is a reason we are not proceeding with a fleet of SSGs and switching to a fleet of SSNs.

MRH-90, would anyone argue with the reasons to switch to the current version of Blackhawk? I think not.

Same argument applies with switching from Tiger ARH to AH-64E.

As to the reasons behind the cancellation of Sky/SeaGuardian, that is an interesting one.

From what little that has been reported, the Government was looking for money to redirect to another project with a higher priority and asked Defence to list a project that could be chopped.

Why was that project selected for the chop? Well who knows, but I suspect it is a capability that may be close to being superseded by time and technology, and if I remember correctly the USAF doesn’t want to continue to procure more MQ-9.


Again, projects get the chop, they get the chop under both sides of politics, not just one side over the other.

A direct quote from the post you responded to:

"It's not, despite appearances, a political problem, it's a public sector problem, i.e. we used to have an independent public service that was expected to provide independent and honest advice without fear or favor. Now its all about towing the party line, not rocking the boat, covering you arse, and working out what the government of the day wants you to do, right or wrong."

You are the one who has made it political because the party you prefer has been seen, to have screwed up a great many defence procurements over the last couple of decades. The root cause of these screw ups has been a disregard or even abuse of process in favour of captains picks and gut feelings. Now a succession of bad choices are being over turned, at great expense and further delay, by the same party that made those bad decisions in the first place.

How were those bad decisions made?
What has been done to ensure similar doesn't happen again?
What has been done to make good the effect on capability?

This is a defence discussion board, not a Scomo and Peter Potato head fan club page. They have screwed up, they continue to screw up, but why? What can be done to prevent similar screw ups in the future, irrespective of which bunch of narcissistic, morons are on the treasury benches?

The answer is an independent and accountable public service that actually has the resources to do its job.

I bet I could list more Labor defence screw ups than you can.

 

[StingrayOZ]

OK guys, I know I instigated a lot of this but its getting pretty political.
I am giving myself a warning and points for instigating political conversation.

Lets not use any nick names or in fact any names of any politicians to keep it apolitical. Ultimately the person in the defmin chair rotates extremely frequently on both sides and all defence decisions is bipartisan now with bipartisan consultation. So lets leave parties out of it too.

Becoming deadlocked in partisan politics does no one any favours.

 

[Volkodav]

I’m a bit confused on your timeline?
FFGs we’re not on any horizon in 66
The link puts the timeline in the early 80’s
I’m not often quoting the leader of the One Nation Party but “please explain”

I was CAGASW in 1980 and the reason why I resigned was the failure to replace Melbourne. I was disgusted with the failure to recognise the importance of organic ASW aircraft both fixed wing and rotary.

Two unrelated things sorry.

I posted the PM&C advice to government to cancel the carrier replacement from 1982, i.e. before the election of the Hawke Government.

I also put up, for general interest, the reference I found when looking for the 1982 stuff, for the 1964 proposal to replace Melbourne with an Essex Class carrier in preference to a CVA-01 or a modernised Centaur. It also includes fully costed plans for Phantoms, Trackers, Tracers etc. to replace the SeaVenoms and Gannets.

Try reading the rest of the 1982 papers, but have a stiff drink and sit down first, it's a travesty. P-3Cs Barra Sonar buoys etc. are superior to aircraft carriers apparently, according to "scientific advice".

Items listing (naa.gov.au)

 

[John Newman]

A direct quote from the post you responded to:

"It's not, despite appearances, a political problem, it's a public sector problem, i.e. we used to have an independent public service that was expected to provide independent and honest advice without fear or favor. Now its all about towing the party line, not rocking the boat, covering you arse, and working out what the government of the day wants you to do, right or wrong."

You are the one who has made it political because the party you prefer has been seen, to have screwed up a great many defence procurements over the last couple of decades. The root cause of these screw ups has been a disregard or even abuse of process in favour of captains picks and gut feelings. Now a succession of bad choices are being over turned, at great expense and further delay, by the same party that made those bad decisions in the first place.

How were those bad decisions made?
What has been done to ensure similar doesn't happen again?
What has been done to make good the effect on capability?

This is a defence discussion board, not a Scomo and Peter Potato head fan club page. They have screwed up, they continue to screw up, but why? What can be done to prevent similar screw ups in the future, irrespective of which bunch of narcissistic, morons are on the treasury benches?

The answer is an independent and accountable public service that actually has the resources to do its job.

I bet I could list more Labor defence screw ups than you can.

V, mate, seriously?

You’ve selectively only partially quoted your own original post that I replied to, here is the first part of your post you ‘missed’ repeating:


“The irony is that all of these troubled procurements and projects were kicked off by the side of politics that is cancelling them and most of the gear we are relying on and life extending, well past its use by date, was bought by the other side and widely criticized for years as not good enough. All I have to say is where would we be today without the ANZACs, Collins, Blackhawks, Seahawks, ASLAVs and Bushmasters etc. Even the old Perenties.”


Those are your words, yes? True?

Tell me that is not political, because it is.

I responded to your ‘whole’ post, not part of the post.

 

[Volkodav]

OK guys, I know I instigated a lot of this but its getting pretty political.
I am giving myself a warning and points for instigating political conversation.

Lets not use any nick names or in fact any names of any politicians to keep it apolitical. Ultimately the person in the defmin chair rotates extremely frequently on both sides and all defence decisions is bipartisan now with bipartisan consultation. So lets leave parties out of it too.

Becoming deadlocked in partisan politics does no one any favours.

Yep sorry about that. I am getting a bit frustrated as I am a very fact driven sort of person and as everyone knows I have gone on and on about dumb decisions in the past, no matter who made them, but there is a very real tendency in most media and many circles to gloss over the screw ups of one side or the other.

Things that particularly get my goat is when I have worked on fixing problems caused by political decisions made against professional advice, then the same politicians who screwed up in the first place, backflip and blame everything on the very people who have been doing their best to deliver capability despite the dead cat they were thrown.

I knew, long before I ever worked on them, that the Armidales were an absolute cluster, but here we are, over a decade later, still ordering derivatives of them but wearing a different dress. Conversely, I was apprehensive about the Collins and Tiger but discovered the issues were mainly political and contractual, while the MRH, which got nowhere near as much bad press, was a total disaster.

My primary concern is actually to get the politics out of it and discuss the actual issues.

 

[OPSSG]

The 57mm has other benefits, its in use with Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei.

Correction — Singapore uses the 76mm at the ‘A’ position of our bigger vessels. There is no Singaporean vessel that uses the 57mm gun.

 

[John Newman]

OK guys, I know I instigated a lot of this but its getting pretty political.
I am giving myself a warning and points for instigating political conversation.

Lets not use any nick names or in fact any names of any politicians to keep it apolitical. Ultimately the person in the defmin chair rotates extremely frequently on both sides and all defence decisions is bipartisan now with bipartisan consultation. So lets leave parties out of it too.

Becoming deadlocked in partisan politics does no one any favours.

Agree.

But to the best of my knowledge, referring to history, factual history, and political history that is relevant to Defence is not against the rules, or the spirit of the rules of DT.

Slagging and nick names is of course another thing indeed.

 

[Volkodav]

V, mate, seriously?

You’ve selectively only partially quoted your own original post that I replied to, here is the first part of your post you ‘missed’ repeating:


“The irony is that all of these troubled procurements and projects were kicked off by the side of politics that is cancelling them and most of the gear we are relying on and life extending, well past its use by date, was bought by the other side and widely criticized for years as not good enough. All I have to say is where would we be today without the ANZACs, Collins, Blackhawks, Seahawks, ASLAVs and Bushmasters etc. Even the old Perenties.”


Those are your words, yes? True?

Tell me that is not political, because it is.

I responded to your ‘whole’ post, not part of the post.

Its fact, pure and simple, an inconvenient truth you could say.

I would go on to say that Labor should have ordered eight Collins as originally planned, that they should have tendered the FFGUP only for Newcastle and Melbourne, while ordering a replacement for the Perth Class DDGs and the US built FFGs. I also believe they should have listened to Michael Hudson when he was Chief of Navy, at the time of the first Fiji coup, and ordered something like HMS Ocean, instead of the LPAs. What else, well there was the opportunity to sell our early F/A-18A/B to Canada, while we still had a hot line, and replace them with new build C/D models, or even building 24-30 Ds to replace the F-111 instead of AUP. There was also a dumb idea to replace the Leopard with extra LAVs that never happened, and oh yes, the M-113 upgrade, that is Labors fault, they turned down on offer of Marders from Germany.

I'm not political about my criticisms, you can tell, right wingers think I'm a socialist and lefties think I'm a fascist. Truth is I'm just the guy in the middle saying, hey guys, the world is a sphere.

 

[Going Boeing]

Two unrelated things sorry.

I posted the PM&C advice to government to cancel the carrier replacement from 1982, i.e. before the election of the Hawke Government.

I also put up, for general interest, the reference I found when looking for the 1982 stuff, for the 1964 proposal to replace Melbourne with an Essex Class carrier in preference to a CVA-01 or a modernised Centaur. It also includes fully costed plans for Phantoms, Trackers, Tracers etc. to replace the SeaVenoms and Gannets.

Try reading the rest of the 1982 papers, but have a stiff drink and sit down first, it's a travesty. P-3Cs Barra Sonar buoys etc. are superior to aircraft carriers apparently, according to "scientific advice".

Items listing (naa.gov.au)

At the time of the cancellation of the Melbourne replacement, 11 Sqn was operating 10 P-3B’s and 10 Sqn had recently taken delivery of 10 P-3C’s (Update 2.5) fitted with the British AQS-901 processor & Oz Barra sonobuoys, a very significant increase in capability. The USN advised Lockheed that they would not order any more P-3’s until the Update 3 version became available - a gap of 18 months. Lockheed was desperate to find a buyer for 10 P-3’s to fill that gap and avoid laying off staff whose skills would be needed when the USN resumed accepting more aircraft. They made an unsolicited offer to the RAAF/Australian government to supply the 10 new aircraft at a bargain price of US$30M per aircraft with a US$6M trade-in price for each of the 10 P-3B’s. This would give the RAAF a common fleet of 20 P3’s with lower maintenance costs at a cheaper price than conducting a mid life upgrade of the B’s.

This occurred about the time that the Federal Government decided to let the UK out of the sale agreement for HMS Invincible and thus there was now $300M in the Defence budget available and was then used to pay for the new Orions.

Despite the RAAF not setting out to undermine the RAN carrier replacement, rumours were abundant at the time about the hostility in Russell Offices of RAN senior officers against the RAAF. The Army took advantage of the situation and pushed to have the helicopter fleets transferred from the RAAF to the Army - history indicates that the RAN brass voted in favour of the transfer.

It’s great to see that the level of inter service rivalry has significantly reduced so that they are now working as the Australian Defence Force.

 

[Volkodav]

At the time of the cancellation of the Melbourne replacement, 11 Sqn was operating 10 P-3B’s and 10 Sqn had recently taken delivery of 10 P-3C’s (Update 2.5) fitted with the British AQS-901 processor & Oz Barra sonobuoys, a very significant increase in capability. The USN advised Lockheed that they would not order any more P-3’s until the Update 3 version became available - a gap of 18 months. Lockheed was desperate to find a buyer for 10 P-3’s to fill that gap and avoid laying off staff whose skills would be needed when the USN resumed accepting more aircraft. They made an unsolicited offer to the RAAF/Australian government to supply the 10 new aircraft at a bargain price of US$30M per aircraft with a US$6M trade-in price for the 10 P-3B’s. This would give the RAAF a common fleet of 20 P3’s with lower maintenance costs at a cheaper price than conducting a mid life upgrade of the B’s.

This occurred about the time that the Federal Government decided to let the UK out of the sale agreement for HMS Invincible and thus there was now $300M in the Defence budget available and was then used to pay for the new Orions.

Despite the RAAF not setting out to undermine the RAN carrier replacement, rumours were abundant at the time about the hostility in Russell Offices of RAN senior officers against the RAAF. The Army took advantage of the situation and pushed to have the helicopter fleets transferred from the RAAF to the Army - history indicates that the RAN brass voted in favour of the transfer.

It’s great to see that the level of inter service rivalry has significantly reduced so that they are now working as the Australian Defence Force.

When you read all the submissions now available in NAA its quite clear the RAAF were more open and honest than the deputy chief scientist (from memory though his title may have been different).

The RAAF acknowledged the value of a carrier, put forward their preference for a CTOL ship that could operate Hornets, while admitting it was probably unaffordable.

The Deputy Chief Scientist on the other hand submitted distortions and complete mistruths to get the Orion option across the line. He was the one who was saying that extra P-3Cs were more critical to Australian defence than the carrier or the RANs ability to operate away from shore. Again from memory, I think he stated that the Sea Harrier was inferior to aircraft such as the F-5E, and this was after the Falklands.

 

[John Newman]

Anyway...... back to reality....

Came across this on the ADM website yesterday:

Defence confirms Growler purchase - Australian Defence Magazine

In October 2021, ADM revealed that the US State Department had announced Congressional approval for Australia to purchase a replacement Boeing EA-18G Growler electronic attack aircraft.

www.australiandefence.com.au

We’ve all seen the reports of the RAAF plans to replace the lost Growler, good news.

And it also appears the RAN is looking to replace the lost MH-60R that ditched in the sea last year too:

“In the same Senate Estimates hearing, Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mike Noonan, said that moves to replace one of Navy’s Sikorsky MH-60R Seahawk helicopters lost in the Philippine Sea in October 2021 are also underway.

“ “With respect to the loss of that particular aircraft last year we have sought advice from the US in terms of the production run of the Romeos,” VADM Noonan testified. “And I have sought to provide advice to Government with respect to replacing that aircraft while the production run of the Romeos is still available to us.”

 

[Bob53]

One of the side effects of gutting the public service is they currently lack the people required to track and report on projects. Add in that a large proportion of middle managers in the public service are ex defence senior NCOs and middle ranking officers (lots of blinkers, totem poles and "yes sir's", that private industry didn't want, and the data that is passed up is at best of questionable integrity.

Gutted? Maybe trimmed a bit but possible cut from the wrong crew? Size and Shape of the APS

 

[Bob53]

OK guys, I know I instigated a lot of this but its getting pretty political.
I am giving myself a warning and points for instigating political conversation.

Lets not use any nick names or in fact any names of any politicians to keep it apolitical. Ultimately the person in the defmin chair rotates extremely frequently on both sides and all defence decisions is bipartisan now with bipartisan consultation. So lets leave parties out of it too.

Becoming deadlocked in partisan politics does no one any favours.

I agree.

I got banned for saying this on the army thread. It was just a fact about who appointed Cosgrove.

But again my point was really about the ABC loves a defence target and like to sully reputations. In this case I expect it will be Sir Peter Cosgrove who was a LNP nominated Governor General.(is the target)


Then I read these comments that just got a bit of green texta....

• I would go on to say that Labor should have ordered eight Collins as originally planned, that they should have tendered the FFGUP only for Newcastle and Melbourne, while ordering a replacement for the Perth Class DDGs and the US built FFGs
• There was also a dumb idea to replace the Leopard with extra LAVs that never happened, and oh yes, the M-113 upgrade, that is Labors fault, they turned down on offer of Marders from Germany.
• This is a defence discussion board, not a Scomo and Peter Potato head fan club page. They have screwed up, they continue to screw up, but why? What can be done to prevent similar screw ups in the future, irrespective of which bunch of narcissistic, morons are on the treasury benches?
• The answer is an independent and accountable public service that actually has the resources to do its job.
• I bet I could list more Labor defence screw ups than you can.
• Like I said the problem wasn't political but while you are on the topic, the Frazer government decided not to replace Melbourne before the election but didn't announce it. Declassified Cabinet papers from the time show this.
• To roll the clock back a bit further, I also clearly remember under the Whitlam ALP Government, the new Def Min, Lance Barnard, canceled the RANs DDL project in mid to late 1973.
• (PS, First on my list is when the newly elected Hawke ALP Government didn’t proceed with the replacement of the carrier HMAS Melbourne.)

Stingray you need to replace Nagi as he is way too sensitive or get him a green crayon. Your response was way more sensible.

 

[ngatimozart]

Stingray you need to replace Nagi as he is way too sensitive or get him a green crayon. Your response was way more sensible.

You think that I am way to sensitive? I have a job to do and I do it regardless of you or others like it or not. If you have a problem about a Moderator you take it either with them or another Moderator by PM, not in the open forum. To quote a certain Gunney, I am not prejudiced, I hate everyone equally.

 

[Rock the kasbah]

There has been alot of information provided here and I appreciate that.
But, is the hunter a good hull?
Can it be all the necessary letters required of the ADF
Never forget the hull is the cheapest part of the build.
It's the extra's that add up

 

[hauritz]

The Hunter class design has been approved for construction.

From the Magazine: HUNTER FRIGATE DESIGN APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION - APDR

The Hunter class frigate program has received quite a bit of criticism lately – including from APDR – but prime contractor BAE Systems says that much of this has been misplaced.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

If the designers and CAD guys have done their job properly the construction phase should be a more trouble free then the Hobart class. The ship will be built with a digital twin which should allow the builders to streamline the whole build process.

If they have done their jobs really well then who knows we might even see he project move ahead of schedule.

 

[ddxx]

The Hunter class design has been approved for construction.

From the Magazine: HUNTER FRIGATE DESIGN APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION - APDR

The Hunter class frigate program has received quite a bit of criticism lately – including from APDR – but prime contractor BAE Systems says that much of this has been misplaced.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

If the designers and CAD guys have done their job properly the construction phase should be a more trouble free then the Hobart class. The ship will be built with a digital twin which should allow the builders to streamline the whole build process.

If they have done their jobs really well then who knows we might even see he project move ahead of schedule.

The headline of this piece doesn’t make much sense and is pretty misleading as there’s yet to be public announcement of the actual ship construction component of the contract being signed for batch one - which, certainly could not occur during caretaker mode.

Even that aside, the writer goes onto attest that the magical 32 cell number (from where?) is completely adequate for a ship *purely* dedicated to ASW. Points which simply don’t add up with *anything* officially released by defence, nor the inclusion of AEGIS, SM-6, and the massively capable CEAFAR Radar…..

 

[Milne Bay]

The headline of this piece doesn’t make much sense and is pretty misleading as there’s yet to be public announcement of the actual ship construction component of the contract being signed for batch one - which, certainly could not occur during caretaker mode.

Even that aside, the writer goes onto attest that the magical 32 cell number (from where?) is completely adequate for a ship *purely* dedicated to ASW. Points which simply don’t add up with *anything* officially released by defence, nor the inclusion of AEGIS, SM-6, and the massively capable CEAFAR Radar…..

It would be worth reading the full article:

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-may-2022/features/hunter-frigate-design-approved-for-construction

which may alleviate some of your concerns
MB

 

[ddxx]

It would be worth reading the full article:

https://venturaapdr.partica.online/apdr/apdr-may-2022/features/hunter-frigate-design-approved-for-construction

which may alleviate some of your concerns
MB

I have read the full article - it doesn’t change the headline being misleading as ship one contract hasn’t been signed?

The writer also quotes a light ship weight which is at odds with the 8,200 given at senate estimates.


Mr Lockhart explained:
“The reference design is 7,600 tonnes, light ship. The Hunter design is 8,800 tonnes, light ship.”

8,800 was the original headline number for full load displacement some years ago. Either the writer has misquoted or BAE has presented a new number otherwise yet to reach the public realm.

 

[John Fedup]

Well *if* the Hunter program is cancelled, it would be a huge collapse for Australia. That is another massive project completely canned half way through.

To the level that international companies may stop bidding on projects and leave the market entirely. How does it look if say the uk and canada get fine capable ships and Australia doesn't? Who looks bad and at fault in that situation? BAE?No.

Particularly if the project is cancelled before building starts. Can't blame the low level worker, salaries or unions for that. Or even another party.

I would even argue it puts the nuclear sub program at risk. Good luck getting SSN without BAE involved and when you have burnt the last couple of companies and nations.

A Hunter cancellation wouldn’t only be a collapse for Australia. It would provide an excuse for the anti defence lobby here in Canada to gut or outright cancel the CSC and replace it with fewer and less capable ships. The debate on missile capacity is getting tiresome, 64 or more, new ship design and 48 is questionable as well. An AUKUS project for a larger ship with extended missile capacity, a DD(x) derivative of some sort perhaps could be an option. This might even be a good trade off for the RCN, give up 4-5 CSC for 3 larger ships.