Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[John Fedup]

Except for this HUGE caveat: "While industrial delays might affect the delivery of the submarines, no political decision had been made to alter the schedule."

As everyone knows US yards can't deliver on time* that seems like a polite way of saying "don't expect your first SSN in 2032".

* 13 Virginias currently building to be delivered between 2025-2032. However both 2025 deliveries have already been pushed into 2026. Also even if the planned production rate increase from 1.3 to 1.6 SSNs/year is achieved, this is still far below the 2.3 SSNs/year that the USN has stated it needs to turnaround its shrinking fleet and have 2 Virginias to spare for Australia
** The DoD plan critically hinges on the refueling and life extension 5-7 older SSNs. This plan is not going well, with the first hull (SSN Cheyenne) now 5 years into a planned 2.5 year overhaul.
*** Meanwhile, ~20 SSN/SSGNs are being retired during the same time period (16 Los Angeles + 4 Ohio SSGNs) having reached the end of their reactor lives, so no way to extend them further

Some real issues with new production of both submarines and surface ships in the USA (and elsewhere) but wrt submarines, SSN and SSGN retirements absolutely complicate things. IMHO, submarine production should be the priority, even at the expense of the surface fleet given the rapid advances in anti-ship missiles (and lets not forget torpedoes). A reduction in CVNs, not sure if this allows for increased SS/N/GN/BN production but perhaps the F/A XX delay isn't only due to a concern about industrial capacity for producing two 6th GEN fighters. Just my two cents....

 

[Stampede]

Except for this HUGE caveat: "While industrial delays might affect the delivery of the submarines, no political decision had been made to alter the schedule."

As everyone knows US yards can't deliver on time* that seems like a polite way of saying "don't expect your first SSN in 2032".

* 13 Virginias currently building to be delivered between 2025-2032. However both 2025 deliveries have already been pushed into 2026. Also even if the planned production rate increase from 1.3 to 1.6 SSNs/year is achieved, this is still far below the 2.3 SSNs/year that the USN has stated it needs to turnaround its shrinking fleet and have 2 Virginias to spare for Australia
** The DoD plan critically hinges on the refueling and life extension 5-7 older SSNs. This plan is not going well, with the first hull (SSN Cheyenne) now 5 years into a planned 2.5 year overhaul.
*** Meanwhile, ~20 SSN/SSGNs are being retired during the same time period (16 Los Angeles + 4 Ohio SSGNs) having reached the end of their reactor lives, so no way to extend them further

Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mark Hammond is very much an ambassador for the current AUKUS road map.

I thought he made an interesting comment when in discussion about the challenges of the Virginia class delivery, he stated that this is America. This is the country that put Man on the moon. They can do engineering stuff..
All well and true , but it must be remembered that that was the America of the 1960s and politically, economically and from a manufacturing point of view the USA today is a very different country.

Australia and the RAN live with that reality and I guess it is fair to say many are guarded by the expectations of AUKUS been delivered to schedule and timetable.

Plan B is not Ghost Shark.
That is a developmental capability that is a compliment not a replacement for a manned submarine.

Plan B appears to be Plan A which is increasingly looking like denial.

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

I just want to make a point in regard to the discussions on OPVs for the RAN.

Not so long ago the plan was for three Hobart class DDGs, nine Hunter Class FFGs, and twelve Arafura Class OPVs with no PBs and possibly replacing MCMVs and Hydros with modified, additional OPVs. There was not a small amphib in sight.

Now it's three DDGs, with replacements penciled in, six FFGs, eleven GPFs (each individually more capable than anything preceding the Hobart's and Hunters), six OPVs and several/a dozen PBs and lots of amphibs.

Why would we possibly even consider more OPVs of a different design?

We have gone from twelve majors, twelve OPVs and no PBs, to twenty majors and six OPVs plus lots of PBs and amphibs.

 

[ADMk2]

I just want to make a point in regard to the discussions on OPVs for the RAN.

Not so long ago the plan was for three Hobart class DDGs, nine Hunter Class FFGs, and twelve Arafura Class OPVs with no PBs and possibly replacing MCMVs and Hydros with modified, additional OPVs. There was not a small amphib in sight.

Now it's three DDGs, with replacements penciled in, six FFGs, eleven GPFs (each individually more capable than anything preceding the Hobart's and Hunters), six OPVs and several/a dozen PBs and lots of amphibs.

Why would we possibly even consider more OPVs of a different design?

We have gone from twelve majors, twelve OPVs and no PBs, to twenty majors and six OPVs plus lots of PBs and amphibs.

Yep, not to mention 6x Collins to 8x larger SSN’s…

RAN is going to have it’s hands full crewing what is presently authorised, let alone any proposed expansion beyond this…

 

[iambuzzard]

I just want to make a point in regard to the discussions on OPVs for the RAN.

Not so long ago the plan was for three Hobart class DDGs, nine Hunter Class FFGs, and twelve Arafura Class OPVs with no PBs and possibly replacing MCMVs and Hydros with modified, additional OPVs. There was not a small amphib in sight.

Now it's three DDGs, with replacements penciled in, six FFGs, eleven GPFs (each individually more capable than anything preceding the Hobart's and Hunters), six OPVs and several/a dozen PBs and lots of amphibs.

Why would we possibly even consider more OPVs of a different design?

We have gone from twelve majors, twelve OPVs and no PBs, to twenty majors and six OPVs plus lots of PBs and amphibs.

Volks, I was only showing other navies interpretation of the capability. Down the track when the Arafuras come up for replacement we will need to think about our choices. Can the Arafura design be modified to increase it's firepower ?

 

[Todjaeger]

Volks, I was only showing other navies interpretation of the capability. Down the track when the Arafuras come up for replacement we will need to think about our choices. Can the Arafura design be modified to increase it's firepower ?

This has been discussed here on DT previously. The short, quick answer is, "Yes."

The longer and more realistic answer is that a vessel design can be modified to increase the combat capability, but there are costs involved in doing so and for a vessel not designed from the outset to be a combatant, it will really never be quite as capable as a vessel of similar size/displacement that was intended to be a combatant in the first place.

Something which seems to keep happening is that people forget what an OPV is really supposed to be, and why that type of vessel got developed. To take an OPV design and try to make it more of a warship is going to drive the costs up significantly, to the point where one might easily approach or exceed the cost of a similarly sized corvette. It would be all well and good if a navy decided they would rather have corvettes than OPV's, but it would also mean they no longer really have low-cost vessels for long range constab/EEZ and fisheries patrolling. In the case of the RAN, this would be a step back towards using frigates to patrol the EEZ...

 

[ADMk2]

This has been discussed here on DT previously. The short, quick answer is, "Yes."

The longer and more realistic answer is that a vessel design can be modified to increase the combat capability, but there are costs involved in doing so and for a vessel not designed from the outset to be a combatant, it will really never be quite as capable as a vessel of similar size/displacement that was intended to be a combatant in the first place.

Something which seems to keep happening is that people forget what an OPV is really supposed to be, and why that type of vessel got developed. To take an OPV design and try to make it more of a warship is going to drive the costs up significantly, to the point where one might easily approach or exceed the cost of a similarly sized corvette. It would be all well and good if a navy decided they would rather have corvettes than OPV's, but it would also mean they no longer really have low-cost vessels for long range constab/EEZ and fisheries patrolling. In the case of the RAN, this would be a step back towards using frigates to patrol the EEZ...

Agreed, but with respect, that is a peacetime mindset. In a crisis, we will be putting weapons on everything we have, just as we did in WW2 when patrol craft were literally crawling with HMG’s, mortars and what have you.

A relatively recent example of what we have to do in a crisis as opposed to what we do in peacetime is us putting RBS-70 on HMAS Kanimbla during Op. Falconer.

We put heavy weapons on inflatable RHIB’s and un-armoured Land Rovers... To say we wouldn’t on 1600t patrol craft is ignoring history and the reality of actual conflict.