Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[swerve]

Just a note StringrayOz Canada is not building nor is it designating the new Protector Class as anything more than an AOR. The vessels offer no more capability than the previous vessels except maybe the ability to take some LOLO outsize cargo similar to what the Adterix can. If they have enhanced features its in the automation and habitability areas. They are Canadainized German Navy Bonn class AORs at three times the cost and ten years late.

Berlin class.

Nothing wrong with the ships, apart from the price. Double-hulled, which is good, & a much smaller crew - the automation & habitability you mention. The old ships were worn out & had to be replaced, & I don't feel I can criticise the choice of replacement. But the cost!

 

[Calculus]

Berlin class.

Nothing wrong with the ships, apart from the price. Double-hulled, which is good, & a much smaller crew - the automation & habitability you mention. The old ships were worn out & had to be replaced, & I don't feel I can criticise the choice of replacement. But the cost!

As @swerve mentions. In addition to the fuel and ammunition storage, the ships will have two 30T cranes, deck space for sea cans, 2 CIWS (Phalanx 1b baseline 2), 4 RWS (.50 cal), full NBC citadel, Nixie torpedo decoy, Saab AMB radar, CMS 330, and a full C&C suite. It will have hangar space for two CH-148s (including a comprehensive maintenance facility for "better than first-line" helicopter repair), and Indal ASSIST for helicopter handling. They will also be able to support at-sea submarine replenishment. For HADR there will be a 45-bed hospital facility (with operating rooms), a large brig facility, water purification plant (400 ton/day capacity), and two ship-to-shore connectors. In addition, they will be ice hardened (to PC5).

There's no doubt they are expensive, but they are not just AORs.

 

[Stampede]

I think your right.
I don’t think the funds will be made available for an all purpose amphib back up for an ARG.
I suspect that given the politics and the individually small nations of the Pacific a smaller ship(s) is likely.
That ship will be built in Aust and the most likely candidate is Austal therefore the most likely hull would be a copy of the T-EPF.
Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF)
They are relatively cheap, AUD 260|300, they can use the small island wharves, they can take enough personnel/cargo to assist small communities, are quick enough to do multiple runs and could be useful support for security crisis in our immediate north just as the chartered HMAS Jervis Bay proved during INTERFET.
Most importantly the construction would come at a time when the Mobile Al yard is running down T-EPF construction. I don’t think it would be acceptable to have it/them built in the US but the expertise is readily transferable.
Depending upon funds (resources should be allocated from the DFAT/Foreign Aid budget) it would be highly desirable to build two.
The ships should be manned by civilians.
If I was calling the shots I’d permanently base one in Cairns and one in Darwin.

With regards to the Pacific support ship I'm wondering what is the best approach.
A smaller vessel such as the Expeditionary Fast Transport (T-EPF) or a slower and larger vessel that brings greater volume and persistence in the area of operation.
Not sure of the golden answer.
The fast transport approach will give a quick immediate response, but as I see it, will rely on multiple relay trips to the area in need to provide an effect.
Also some concerns with regards to range, but that may in part be what is actually our criteria of operation?
Another part of the answer will be which governmental department owns and is responsible for such a vessel.
As a national asset,should or would it ever have a military role?

What ever is selected, I would prefer it being a naval vessel which can do HADR and also contribute to defence needs,rather than some other alternative.

I tend to think a much bigger rather than smaller ship, that is in fact an addition to one of our existing class of ships, or one of a future class of multiple ships we seek to acquire

Eg....Supply Class,Canberra Class or Choules / replacement Class..
Probably the later!
The Joint support ship seems to tick all the boxes and I feel Navantia Australia are both investing in and pitching such a vessel for a reason.
They have done their homework

Regards S

 

[PeterM]

Is it possible that HMAS Choules is transferred to the Pacific support ship with the Choules replacement being brought forward (perhaps a Navantia LPD or JSS)?

The Bay class operate with 70 crew in the RFA. From a PR/political perspective, given Choules performance in HADR with bushfire support, using it as the Pacific support ship would be quite valuable for our Pacific allies.

 

[SteveR]

The State Department has reportedly approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to Australia of long-lead items, engineering development activities, and other defence services for the Australian Surface Combatant Program at an estimated cost of $1.5 billion.

"-Three Shipsets of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) in the MK 6 Mod 1 configuration to support the Modernization of the Hobart Class DDGs;

-Three Shipsets of the AEGIS Weapon System (AWS) in the MK 6 Mod 1 configuration to support the New Construction of the Hunter Class FFG"
Australia Surface Combatant (ASC) Program

Can anyone confirm what the Aegis Weapon System Mk 6 Mod 1 variant incorporates. As I look up various Open Source Naval References I see that the whole AEGIS System is known as the Mk 7 though it comes in different Baselines e.g. Baseline 6.1 for USN DDG 79-85. As I recall the original RAN Hobart class were to be based on the modernised CG Cruiser Aegis for the extra Command options and integration of SPQ-9B, but I have long lost the reference to that.

So I remain confused what the Mk 6 Mod 1 actually is?

 

[ngatimozart]

As @swerve mentions. In addition to the fuel and ammunition storage, the ships will have two 30T cranes, deck space for sea cans, 2 CIWS (Phalanx 1b baseline 2), 4 RWS (.50 cal), full NBC citadel, Nixie torpedo decoy, Saab AMB radar, CMS 330, and a full C&C suite. It will have hangar space for two CH-148s (including a comprehensive maintenance facility for "better than first-line" helicopter repair), and Indal ASSIST for helicopter handling. They will also be able to support at-sea submarine replenishment. For HADR there will be a 45-bed hospital facility (with operating rooms), a large brig facility, water purification plant (400 ton/day capacity), and two ship-to-shore connectors. In addition, they will be ice hardened (to PC5).

There's no doubt they are expensive, but they are not just AORs.

Well they aren't much more than a glorified AOR then are they? They have just a couple of extra amenities that don't change their core mission. For what you are paying for two of them including the ice strengthening and winterization the RNZN could acquire 6 Aotearoa class ships, which are about the same size and specs. In fact the cost of those two ships would provide for 6 Aotearoa class ships to outfit the RAN (4) and the RNZN (2). Gawd what a waste of money. Somebody is sure as hell ripping off the poor old Canadian taxpayer. Anyways this discussion is best kept for the RCN thread.

 

[StobieWan]

Any comment on the recent reports about the Collins replacement program which is reported as being an uphill struggle with the vendor ?

I've only had half an eye on the program but there does seem to be quite a bit of chatter around it recently.

 

[Calculus]

Any comment on the recent reports about the Collins replacement program which is reported as being an uphill struggle with the vendor ?

I've only had half an eye on the program but there does seem to be quite a bit of chatter around it recently.

It seems out of control. Cost to build has gone from 50 to $80Bil (a 60% rise).

• Cost of submarines sails past $200 billion
  
• https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...5b-to-build-and-maintain-20191129-p53fds.html
• https://www.naval-technology.com/news/australias-attack-class-submarine-programme-to-cost-152bn

As an outsider from another Commonwealth country with expensive shipbuilding programs I understand the value of building locally, and support it, but at some point you have to stop and take measure. What is the opportunity cost of this program, for example? I'd want to know how many future programs are going to get curtailed or cancelled in order to absorb this massive increase in cost? What is the strategic implication to Australia of those future cuts? Also, many posters on this thread over the past several years have justified the initial estimate of $50Bil (which was already quite high) as it represented "through life costs". That does not appear to have been the case. So, my question to the posters on this thread is this: If these costs are indeed valid, does it still make sense to pursue this program? I ask this question in the spirit of debate, not to elicit an attack, or as an excuse to pummel me with examples of Canadian excess when it comes to shipbuilding programs. It's a simple question. Is this program, in its current guise, still worth pursuing?

PS I would like to add that there are a lot of people in Canada pulling for this program, as it seemed like an excellent candidate to replace our own Victoria class subs, which are due for replacement around 2035.

 

[Takao]

It seems out of control. Cost to build has gone from 50 to $80Bil (a 60% rise).

• Cost of submarines sails past $200 billion
  
• https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...5b-to-build-and-maintain-20191129-p53fds.html
• https://www.naval-technology.com/news/australias-attack-class-submarine-programme-to-cost-152bn

As an outsider from another Commonwealth country with expensive shipbuilding programs I understand the value of building locally, and support it, but at some point you have to stop and take measure. What is the opportunity cost of this program, for example? I'd want to know how many future programs are going to get curtailed or cancelled in order to absorb this massive increase in cost? What is the strategic implication to Australia of those future cuts? Also, many posters on this thread over the past several years have justified the initial estimate of $50Bil (which was already quite high) as it represented "through life costs". That does not appear to have been the case. So, my question to the posters on this thread is this: If these costs are indeed valid, does it still make sense to pursue this program? I ask this question in the spirit of debate, not to elicit an attack, or as an excuse to pummel me with examples of Canadian excess when it comes to shipbuilding programs. It's a simple question. Is this program, in its current guise, still worth pursuing?

PS I would like to add that there are a lot of people in Canada pulling for this program, as it seemed like an excellent candidate to replace our own Victoria class subs, which are due for replacement around 2035.

Costs may or may not be out of control, but that $50 billion v $80 billion is the same number.

$50 bn is for acquisition in 2017 (?) dollars. It's constant.
$80 bn is for acquisition in each year dollars. It take into account inflation. The inflation figure has significant background - three are used depending on what is being bought and it comes from Dept of Finance, not the DoD. So it applies across the Government.

The through-life sustainment funding is around $145 billion (in each year dollars).

What are the strategic cuts made to pay for this? Many. Is that acceptable - hmmm.....possibly. It is an essential capability with unique geo-political capabilities; how do you compare easily (or at an unclass level)?

 

[Stampede]

Costs may or may not be out of control, but that $50 billion v $80 billion is the same number.

$50 bn is for acquisition in 2017 (?) dollars. It's constant.
$80 bn is for acquisition in each year dollars. It take into account inflation. The inflation figure has significant background - three are used depending on what is being bought and it comes from Dept of Finance, not the DoD. So it applies across the Government.

The through-life sustainment funding is around $145 billion (in each year dollars).

What are the strategic cuts made to pay for this? Many. Is that acceptable - hmmm.....possibly. It is an essential capability with unique geo-political capabilities; how do you compare easily (or at an unclass level)?

All up it's still early days for SEA 1000, which in reality is a project that will go for decades.
Yet still, Calculas asks a lot of good questions.

My question would be, is government and defence content with the progress and financial expectations with SEA 1000 at this point in time?
If not..................where do we go from here?
I do hope this project goes well, however if it looks problematic I trust there is a prompt bi partisan Plan B acceptable to government and defence, that can be implemented in a realistic time frame to secure deployable submarine numbers in the years / decades ahead.

Fingers crossed

Regards S

 

[Redlands18]

All up it's still early days for SEA 1000, which in reality is a project that will go for decades.
Yet still, Calculas asks a lot of good questions.

My question would be, is government and defence content with the progress and financial expectations with SEA 1000 at this point in time?
If not..................where do we go from here?
I do hope this project goes well, however if it looks problematic I trust there is a prompt bi partisan Plan B acceptable to government and defence, that can be implemented in a realistic time frame to secure deployable submarine numbers in the years / decades ahead.

Fingers crossed

Regards S

I think Sticker Shock is beginning to sink in with a lot of people and i can see growing public pressure coming to bear on Governments to cut back costs on this entire program.

 

[Stampede]

I feel you may be correct.
When folk ( tax payers ) are running BBQ's to raise some dosh for that much needed asset in the local community, such large figures for submarines will need justifying.
Not saying we don't need submarines as I do acknowledge they are a premium priced defence asset.
I'm just guarded as to where this project is going, and how it will be perceived across all government departments and also with in defence for competing finances.

Regards S

 

[Volkodav]

I think Sticker Shock is beginning to sink in with a lot of people and i can see growing public pressure coming to bear on Governments to cut back costs on this entire program.

Cutting costs is where the very real cost increases and schedule delays start.

Slowing the project means facilities and workforce operating at less than optimal efficiency, cutting numbers increases unit cost and wrecks the planned continuous build, building the first few off shore means the second/third/whatever boat becomes the local first build meaning we are subsidising the learning curve of two building yards, not one. Descoping or discarding required capability means reduced value for money, and either expensive upgrades soon after entering service or degraded capability for an extended period.

I'm totally against wasting money but at the same time realise that undercapitalising investment is one of the biggest causes of waste. I much prefer seeing problems indentified and solved early rather than left till later when it's more expensive and maybe not the time to do anything.

The key thing to remember about this project and the new frigates, is it is as much about building sovereign design and build capability as acquiring new platforms. If this part is done right, future acquisitions will run smoother, be competative and better value for money.

 

[John Newman]

I feel you may be correct.
When folk ( tax payers ) are running BBQ's to raise some dosh for that much needed asset in the local community, such large figures for submarines will need justifying.
Not saying we don't need submarines as I do acknowledge they are a premium priced defence asset.
I'm just guarded as to where this project is going, and how it will be perceived across all government departments and also with in defence for competing finances.

Regards S

The average Joe public discussing Attack class submarines at a BBQ? Seriously??

Just because you, I and others here on DT take notice of Defence and Defence spending, doesn't mean the average punter in the street has any idea of what is going on with Defence.

There is a lot of the 'sky is falling' reports and hand wringing going on by certain sections of the media, but my experience over the years and decades past is that the average punter has absolutely NFI about Defence.

I think it's time to take a deep breath, take a Bex and have a good lie down too.

 

[Redlands18]

Cutting costs is where the very real cost increases and schedule delays start.

Slowing the project means facilities and workforce operating at less than optimal efficiency, cutting numbers increases unit cost and wrecks the planned continuous build, building the first few off shore means the second/third/whatever boat becomes the local first build meaning we are subsidising the learning curve of two building yards, not one. Descoping or discarding required capability means reduced value for money, and either expensive upgrades soon after entering service or degraded capability for an extended period.

I'm totally against wasting money but at the same time realise that undercapitalising investment is one of the biggest causes of waste. I much prefer seeing problems indentified and solved early rather than left till later when it's more expensive and maybe not the time to do anything.

The key thing to remember about this project and the new frigates, is it is as much about building sovereign design and build capability as acquiring new platforms. If this part is done right, future acquisitions will run smoother, be competative and better value for money.

I’m not disagreeing with you in any form John but we are talking about a scary amount of money here and it has real potential to become a political hot potato especially if things don’t go to plan. $200b is a lot of money till you realise that we are talking about out past 2080 and that will need to be explained properly to Joe/Joanne public. They may not care to much about Submarines for the RAN but they will about the Aus Gov spending $200b
One thing to remember about the Subs especially is Australia has never planned a Military procurement from scratch with an end date 60-70 years away before. If you went back to the early 60s/70s/80s/90s and announced how much money would end up being spent on the F-111s/FFGs/FA-18s and Collins class respectively there would also be serious Sticker Shock.

 

[seaspear]

Is there any possibilty that Canada at some point becoming involved in the this project as their own submarines near end of operations and the unique abilities of this class of submarine are more advantagous than other conventional submarines on offer by Europe ,

 

[ASSAIL]

This hand wringing about costs for sophisticated capability has started to sound familiar, F35, Collins anyone?
If Australia’s strategic circumstance (the subject of much discussion and general agreement) requires a modern submarine force to counter the influence of a growing and existential threat of Chinese expansionism in SEAsia and the Pacific, then the cost must be accepted.
The alternative and feel good option for the self obsessed, entitled section of our community is for Australia to reshape the ADF to a few light Infantry Btns, some transport aircraft and a few patrol vessels and only spend 1% or less of GDP but that doesn’t win friends or influence people in the grown up world of international affairs.

If we wish to remain a strategic player of note in this part of the world we accept the cost of SEA1000 and try to make the acquisition as efficient and painless as possible.

 

[John Newman]

I’m not disagreeing with you in any form John but we are talking about a scary amount of money here and it has real potential to become a political hot potato especially if things don’t go to plan. $200b is a lot of money till you realise that we are talking about out past 2080 and that will need to be explained properly to Joe/Joanne public.

Mate, no offence, but you are dead wrong, Joe/Joanne public doesn't need the submarine project (or any other current defence project) explained to them properly, all the information is in the public domain IF they want to know about it, and they don't because they have no interest whatsoever.

You get 100 punters in a room, how many do you think have any real ideal about Defence policy, Defence spending, DWPs, DIIPs, etc? You'd be lucky to have 10%, max, have any real knowledge or interest.

As long as they all continue to receive their middle class welfare, life is good, they are more likely to talk about the waste of money that the NBN is (and the way the project cost estimates dramatically blew out), but these days how many people talk about the NBN? I haven't heard it discussed for years and years.

And on top of that, Defence for the most part is not a game of political football in this country (certainly compared to Canada for example).

Yes it a scary amount of money, but what isn't these days? And mentioning 2080, well that's even more 'who cares', most people think about next week or next month, certainly not 60 years from now.

Cheers,

 

[Redlands18]

Is there any possibilty that Canada at some point becoming involved in the this project as their own submarines near end of operations and the unique abilities of this class of submarine are more advantagous than other conventional submarines on offer by Europe ,

Who knows? The Dutch Submarine replacement program currently underway in which Naval Group have put up a version of the Attack design may also be of some interest to the Canadians, if they replace there Subs and our Canadian friends on here have real doubts about that happening.

 

[Redlands18]

Mate, no offence, but you are dead wrong, Joe/Joanne public doesn't need the submarine project (or any other current defence project) explained to them properly, all the information is in the public domain IF they want to know about it, and they don't because they have no interest whatsoever.

You get 100 punters in a room, how many do you think have any real ideal about Defence policy, Defence spending, DWPs, DIIPs, etc? You'd be lucky to have 10%, max, have any real knowledge or interest.

As long as they all continue to receive their middle class welfare, life is good, they are more likely to talk about the waste of money that the NBN is (and the way the project cost estimates dramatically blew out), but these days how many people talk about the NBN? I haven't heard it discussed for years and years.

And on top of that, Defence for the most part is not a game of political football in this country (certainly compared to Canada for example).

Yes it a scary amount of money, but what isn't these days? And mentioning 2080, well that's even more 'who cares', most people think about next week or next month, certainly not 60 years from now.

Cheers,

As you have said for the most part Defence is not a game of Political Football and i hope it doesn’t turn into one but just because it isn’t right now doesn’t mean that won’t change especially in the time frame we are talking about.
I totally agree with the current Shipbuilding plan but i am not naive enough to believe there is not rocky roads ahead both Politically and Technically. We are still 15 or so years away from commissioning the 1st Boat and a lot of things can happen in 15 years.