Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Stampede

Well-Known Member
This link from Defense-Aerospace (sourced from AFR) suggests up to a 2 year delay for the Hunter program. If true, it would seem to match Canada’s CSC timeframe somewhat (Canadian start even further down the road). This is why 2 more De Wolfe class ships are being built to keep Irving active. If Canada faces similar engineering delays it might be good for NZ. There would be a lot of incentive for Irving and the Canadian government to make a very good offer on a ninth De Wolfe.
Would be nice to have some clarity on this development.

Suggest the Hobart and ANZAC class need to be supported by a true middle tier vessel that the Arafura Class unfortunately does not satisfy.
This will be prudent if the Hunter Class program slips in time table.

While "up gunning" the Arafura Class has been discussed at length to the frustration of many, there maybe another option.
With the recent Defence Strategic Review stating that up to eight vessels will be acquired in the mine counter measures role and that these may be based on the Arafura Class, then there lies the potential for up to 20 vessels of a common hull form.
Many will remember this is a similar number to what was proposed a decade ago as a class of ship to replace our existing patrol / mine warfare and survey force.

Suggest there is now an opportunity to split this build into a class of two.

The Arafura Class is based on the Lurssen OPV 80 which is similar to the Brunei Navy's Darussalam Class.
Lurssen also offer a range of larger OPV vessels and these may be of interest for the RAN to satisfy the needs of a more robust middle tier vessel.
A version of their OPV 90 should provide a vessel with a true helicopter capability complete with a dedicated hangar.
Being of larger size and weight additional sensors and weaponry could and should be added.
This is not meant to be a frigate substitute, but rather a vessel adequately equipped to fulfil the broad range of tasks required in between a OPV and your major fleet assets.
It would still have much commonality with the existing Arafura Class but just with "more Stuff."
As to the number mix, take your pick, but suggest this approach should be a quick solution to any slip in the HUNTER Class program and probably a much needed missing capability at any case within our existing fleet.

Thoughts

Regards S
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Would be nice to have some clarity on this development.

Suggest the Hobart and ANZAC class need to be supported by a true middle tier vessel that the Arafura Class unfortunately does not satisfy.
This will be prudent if the Hunter Class program slips in time table.
So the Hunters are going to be 10,000t and 2 years late? According to AFR in 2 seperate stories in the last couple of months.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Another Andrew Tillett article same guy who wrote semi scare piece earlier in regards to ship growth. He is a political commentator, not a defence expert so take his articles with a grain of salt that being said he is not as bad as most. When all said and done if a 2 year delay is all we are facing then not so bad at not bad enough to be rushing to buy interim ships or modify existing plans adding time, cost and risk to those. Means instead of 2027 for first ship commissioned we wait until 2029. Not ideal but not the end of the world.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Another Andrew Tillett article same guy who wrote semi scare piece earlier in regards to ship growth. He is a political commentator, not a defence expert so take his articles with a grain of salt that being said he is not as bad as most. When all said and done if a 2 year delay is all we are facing then not so bad at not bad enough to be rushing to buy interim ships or modify existing plans adding time, cost and risk to those. Means instead of 2027 for first ship commissioned we wait until 2029. Not ideal but not the end of the world.
And its not as if the Anzacs need replacing right now, they have been given a decent upgrade, to keep them survivable into the 2030s. The biggest problem for the RAN may be it will throw out the Planned out of service dates for the Anzacs.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Would be nice to have some clarity on this development.

Suggest the Hobart and ANZAC class need to be supported by a true middle tier vessel that the Arafura Class unfortunately does not satisfy.
This will be prudent if the Hunter Class program slips in time table.

While "up gunning" the Arafura Class has been discussed at length to the frustration of many, there maybe another option.
With the recent Defence Strategic Review stating that up to eight vessels will be acquired in the mine counter measures role and that these may be based on the Arafura Class, then there lies the potential for up to 20 vessels of a common hull form.
Many will remember this is a similar number to what was proposed a decade ago as a class of ship to replace our existing patrol / mine warfare and survey force.

Suggest there is now an opportunity to split this build into a class of two.

The Arafura Class is based on the Lurssen OPV 80 which is similar to the Brunei Navy's Darussalam Class.
Lurssen also offer a range of larger OPV vessels and these may be of interest for the RAN to satisfy the needs of a more robust middle tier vessel.
A version of their OPV 90 should provide a vessel with a true helicopter capability complete with a dedicated hangar.
Being of larger size and weight additional sensors and weaponry could and should be added.
This is not meant to be a frigate substitute, but rather a vessel adequately equipped to fulfil the broad range of tasks required in between a OPV and your major fleet assets.
It would still have much commonality with the existing Arafura Class but just with "more Stuff."
As to the number mix, take your pick, but suggest this approach should be a quick solution to any slip in the HUNTER Class program and probably a much needed missing capability at any case within our existing fleet.

Thoughts

Regards S
There are some decidedly more warrie designs out there, the Gernman K130 and the Israeli SAAR 6 derived from it come to mind, Lussen is even part of those projects so could remain a partner in an RAN version.

Fit it with systems evolved from the various ANZAC upgrades and the RAN would have a very capable small combatant to support the majors and give some real teeth to the minors.

Fun fantasy, but short of immanent war I can't see it happening. The question remains, where is the money better spent, nice to have corvettes / light frigates or something else, i.e. additional DDG / FFG, perhaps even a light carrier or two. ;)
 

Richo99

Member
..... suggest this approach should be a quick solution to any slip in the HUNTER Class program and probably a much needed missing capability at any case within our existing fleet.

Thoughts

Regards S
If keeping the fires burning at Osborne is the main concern with a slip in the Hunter program, an alternative to building additional corvettes etc, might be to renegotiate the contract with Henderson so that instead of constructing the last 10 Arafura OPVs, they get say the last 7, with 3 transferred back to Osborne, with both lines running concurrently for the next two years.

As a sweetener for Henderson, add 8 MCMV/Hydro versions of the Arafura to the end of their program.

This might mess a bit with the continuous build program for the minor war vessels, but equally, so does delaying the Hunters for two years for the majors....
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
There are some decidedly more warrie designs out there, the Gernman K130 and the Israeli SAAR 6 derived from it come to mind, Lussen is even part of those projects so could remain a partner in an RAN version.

Fit it with systems evolved from the various ANZAC upgrades and the RAN would have a very capable small combatant to support the majors and give some real teeth to the minors.

Fun fantasy, but short of immanent war I can't see it happening. The question remains, where is the money better spent, nice to have corvettes / light frigates or something else, i.e. additional DDG / FFG, perhaps even a light carrier or two. ;)
A question of money and time.
Defence dollars can only be spent once, so what do you prioritise.
At this stage I'd balance that against time.
I have concerns of a fleet of 11 Destroyers / Frigates going into the late 2020's.
We have done the best we can with the ANZAC's and the Hobarts are impressive ships that will serve us well, but it is a numbers game.
We are not going to increase in numbers or capability either of these two classes of ships, other than their planned upgrades, so what's the best way to add fleet capability quickly and relatively cheaply?
The Arafura Class will provide some reprieve to the destroyer / frigate force in offering options to government the previous patrol boat classes could never do; mainly in their ability to conduct business at greater range and with true integral unmanned aviation assets. Unfortunately they should have being designed from the start to have offered a move robust capability.
A missed opportunity or still maybe not!
There are many designs out there in the Corvette / Light frigate realm, but again its a question of time and expense.
The only answer I can envisage is to keep it relatively simple with commonality of design of a larger class in the lurssen range offering the most prudent way forward.
An emphasis on ASW should be the priority.
Flight deck with Hangar for a Romeo helicopter.
Leonardo 40 mm canon ( Type C ) / 2 x 50 cal / 2 x Mk 32 Torpedo Launchers / Nulka and other decoy launchers / Towed Array and sensors to support all these systems.
This should be enough to sail into harms way under the protective umbrella of the majors and yet still be a useful contributor to the task force.
An asset not a liability that can still perform the constabulary role most of the time.

Is this the best vessel for the job.
maybe not, but it's about money and time.

And yes Volk give Navantia the order for another Canberra LHD and bring forward Choules replacement ASAP with those TWO Amphib / supply ship things.................. Build all three OS and give them the cheque. It will be a good deal for all and it want break the bank.

Could all be done before 2030 and guarantee they will be the most used bits of kit across the services within the ADF.



Regards S
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
If keeping the fires burning at Osborne is the main concern with a slip in the Hunter program, an alternative to building additional corvettes etc, might be to renegotiate the contract with Henderson so that instead of constructing the last 10 Arafura OPVs, they get say the last 7, with 3 transferred back to Osborne, with both lines running concurrently for the next two years.

As a sweetener for Henderson, add 8 MCMV/Hydro versions of the Arafura to the end of their program.

This might mess a bit with the continuous build program for the minor war vessels, but equally, so does delaying the Hunters for two years for the majors....
Yep
run the build out of both yards in the short term
18 to 20 vessels is a big program !!!!!!!!!

Regards S
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
None of this makes sense.

One - the OPV has a mission and a design. Up-gunning it will cost money, time and capability. Changing it now will also delay its time into service. The Arafura's are needed now before the Armidale's run out of life.

Two - there has been considerable investigation into the MCM capability, starting with an increase priority/focus on it. An enormous amount of work has gone into ensuring that the balance between Arafura and MCM is met to ensure the best combination of compatibility and capability. Any other design will (a) reduce this, costing money and capability in the long run and (b) be delayed. Of all our fleets, the MCM is probably #1 or #2 that cannot be delayed.

Three - we need better MCM x years ago. Delaying them is unacceptable to the Army and the Navy...

Four - any new design, MCM or not, isn't going to be designed and accepted in a time period less than any Hunter delay. In a peacetime setting, two years to introduce into service a new platform? With all the training, sustainment and engineering approvals?

Five - building a CV or LHD in that time?...

Six - where is the money coming from? Every idea on this page costs hundreds of millions of dollars. What are we cutting? We just did a FSP - I can assure you there isn't bucketloads of $$ just hanging around not allocated.

Seven - where is the workforce coming from? I can tell you right now there are kids just in school who haven't given any thought to the Navy that will join in 2032; and their jobs are already allocated. Like $$, there isn't just a bunch of white uniforms sitting around doing nothing (well...**) and it's unlikely there are additional people in civvy street that can be recruited.

Assuming the Hunter's are actually delayed (and this isn't another misreading or made up fact), beyond these immediate issues, these are all a kit solution to something that is not a kit problem. A better question lies in asking why they are delayed. How is it that decades after Anzac and Collins started, despite all the claimed positives of a continuous shipbuilding program, despite all the money, we still can't design and build a ship on time? As someone who has strongly argued for domestic industry across Army, Navy and the Joint world, it's damn hard to make the arguments when mickey mouse shit keeps happening. There is obviously an issue somewhere, and judging by its persistence it's a cultural issue. Which will be hard to fix. But I'd rather spend the $$ and time on fixing that then a random, short-term kit fix
 

Richo99

Member
None of this makes sense.

One - the OPV has a mission and a design. Up-gunning it will cost money, time and capability. Changing it now will also delay its time into service. The Arafura's are needed now before the Armidale's run out of life.

Two - there has been considerable investigation into the MCM capability, starting with an increase priority/focus on it. An enormous amount of work has gone into ensuring that the balance between Arafura and MCM is met to ensure the best combination of compatibility and capability. Any other design will (a) reduce this, costing money and capability in the long run and (b) be delayed. Of all our fleets, the MCM is probably #1 or #2 that cannot be delayed.

Three - we need better MCM x years ago. Delaying them is unacceptable to the Army and the Navy...

Four - any new design, MCM or not, isn't going to be designed and accepted in a time period less than any Hunter delay. In a peacetime setting, two years to introduce into service a new platform? With all the training, sustainment and engineering approvals?

Five - building a CV or LHD in that time?...

Six - where is the money coming from? Every idea on this page costs hundreds of millions of dollars. What are we cutting? We just did a FSP - I can assure you there isn't bucketloads of $$ just hanging around not allocated.

Seven - where is the workforce coming from? I can tell you right now there are kids just in school who haven't given any thought to the Navy that will join in 2032; and their jobs are already allocated. Like $$, there isn't just a bunch of white uniforms sitting around doing nothing (well...**) and it's unlikely there are additional people in civvy street that can be recruited.

Assuming the Hunter's are actually delayed (and this isn't another misreading or made up fact), beyond these immediate issues, these are all a kit solution to something that is not a kit problem. A better question lies in asking why they are delayed. How is it that decades after Anzac and Collins started, despite all the claimed positives of a continuous shipbuilding program, despite all the money, we still can't design and build a ship on time? As someone who has strongly argued for domestic industry across Army, Navy and the Joint world, it's damn hard to make the arguments when mickey mouse shit keeps happening. There is obviously an issue somewhere, and judging by its persistence it's a cultural issue. Which will be hard to fix. But I'd rather spend the $$ and time on fixing that then a random, short-term kit fix
Don't think any of the above is relevant to my comments, which in essence, only suggested bringing forward already planned capabilities to keep an existing workforce in place if Hunter work is delayed. Of course that last part is key....
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
None of this makes sense.

One - the OPV has a mission and a design. Up-gunning it will cost money, time and capability. Changing it now will also delay its time into service. The Arafura's are needed now before the Armidale's run out of life.

Two - there has been considerable investigation into the MCM capability, starting with an increase priority/focus on it. An enormous amount of work has gone into ensuring that the balance between Arafura and MCM is met to ensure the best combination of compatibility and capability. Any other design will (a) reduce this, costing money and capability in the long run and (b) be delayed. Of all our fleets, the MCM is probably #1 or #2 that cannot be delayed.

Three - we need better MCM x years ago. Delaying them is unacceptable to the Army and the Navy...

Four - any new design, MCM or not, isn't going to be designed and accepted in a time period less than any Hunter delay. In a peacetime setting, two years to introduce into service a new platform? With all the training, sustainment and engineering approvals?

Five - building a CV or LHD in that time?...

Six - where is the money coming from? Every idea on this page costs hundreds of millions of dollars. What are we cutting? We just did a FSP - I can assure you there isn't bucketloads of $$ just hanging around not allocated.

Seven - where is the workforce coming from? I can tell you right now there are kids just in school who haven't given any thought to the Navy that will join in 2032; and their jobs are already allocated. Like $$, there isn't just a bunch of white uniforms sitting around doing nothing (well...**) and it's unlikely there are additional people in civvy street that can be recruited.

Assuming the Hunter's are actually delayed (and this isn't another misreading or made up fact), beyond these immediate issues, these are all a kit solution to something that is not a kit problem. A better question lies in asking why they are delayed. How is it that decades after Anzac and Collins started, despite all the claimed positives of a continuous shipbuilding program, despite all the money, we still can't design and build a ship on time? As someone who has strongly argued for domestic industry across Army, Navy and the Joint world, it's damn hard to make the arguments when mickey mouse shit keeps happening. There is obviously an issue somewhere, and judging by its persistence it's a cultural issue. Which will be hard to fix. But I'd rather spend the $$ and time on fixing that then a random, short-term kit fix

Thanks Takao

One - Run the 12 x Arafura Class OPV's as is with no alterations, including "up gunning ."

Two - Didn't mention MCM because it is already in hand as a capability and priority.
As stated on the Navy website " The OPV design will support specialist mission packages, such as a maritime tactical unmanned aerial system, and into the future, rapid environmental assessment and deployable mine counter measure capabilities. "
The expense will be in the modular systems the OPV,s will carry. This is in other projects and are already budgeted for into the future.
Another variable is the unknown of the Strategic review announcement that up to eight additional vessels ( Potentially based on the Arafura Class ) will be acquired. This is the mystery bit............ will they be exactly the same, or be of a different design, or in fact maybe the same design but with fixed integrated MCM systems? Wait and see?

This is the part of the opportunity of having two classes of vessel and how we balance that mix.

Three - Agree, we have had a six vessel fleet for many decades from the current Huon class back to the older Ton class although not all ships have been in service for the life of the vessel.
With four active today and the governments announcement this force is to be "", then this clearly suggests the importance of this realm both today and into the future. I am an advocate for a increased MCM capability.

Four. - MCM is a developing art globally . Sailing the vessel into the danger zone is currently not the approach. Some unknowns here as both vessels and the systems they carry evolve. Suggest some existing MCM remote systems are acquired in greater numbers now and we monitor what works for us and build upon and acquire newer systems accordingly.

Five - The need for two Amphibious / Supply ships is already stated and will be budgeted for both for the vessels and those that crew them.
The LHD is still the fantasy stuff because it wasn't ordered originally, even though some in the Navy asked for it back in the day of original purchase .
I think it was the defence Minister who stated they" were out of control" or something to that affect.
With the two LHD's currently in service providing such amazingly good service over such a broad rage of activities its hard to think of another capability across the ADF that provides better service to defence and government.
As to time table ,Navantia Spain could easily build all three within the decade. Our two Supply Class ships will have been laid down and delivered within some six years...........Don't see a problem.

Six - Spend more or make difficult choices. If its the later, we will get much more national benefit from an additional LHD with crew and flying things than a couple of Attack Class Submarines.
Yes I understand all the consequences of that statement both for the platform and consequences to the production program.
And yes buying complicated defence kit is not like going to the shop and choosing one item over the other but the submarine program is where I'd rob Peter to pay Paul.

Seven - the ADF has to be a competitive and smart employer both now and into the future. Stating the obvious maybe!
Suggest a look at smaller high tech nations like Singapore maybe the way forward. This needs to happen across all of defence. I can see the increasing use of automation being key to answer much of the challenges. While not a substitute for all roles it will mirror the civilian work place where cost and efficiencies will constantly be sort..........there will always be a place for boots on the ground but Navy in particular with it's many technical systems is well place to take advantage in this area to enable vessels to operate with less crew.........................It will be a balance of many trade offs in ship numbers / efficiency / and out comes, but trust never in crew safety.

Ideally the 12 Arafuras will provide their existing job set including MCM with the six to eight additional MCM ships being of a larger class re directed in purpose with the kit I proposed to have an emphasis on ASW.
Keep building the remaining 10 in WA and a couple of additional OPVs in SA depending on the Hunter Class build schedule.
Keep both classes with like machinery and systems. Commonality is import for both cost, maintenance and training. Two sized vessels being constructed in an overlapping build. When design work is complete on the ASW OPV then some of these could be slotted in earlier within the existing build schedule......................After all they can still perform the constabulary stuff that is mooted to be needed now but be a higher end asset ready to support the majors in the late 2020's which is really what this conversation is about.

It's really just about adding some modest extra capability to only some of the ships we are already going to build.
This is not big dollars yet delivers a great out come for money spent.

The extra LHD however would be the icing on the cake.


Cheers


Regards S
 
Last edited:

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
A key part of the plan is to build these larger support ships in Australia. They may have been budgeted for but that was for future years, not now. Bringing forward such projects to have the jobs go overseas won't do anything for us. The entire issue if such an issue actually exists is a possible work gap between the OPV's and Hunters. Building ships in Spain, acquiring corvettes etc won't fix anything. The one and only solution that can be quickly implemented is building an extra 2-3 OPV's while waiting on the hunters. They can either come from existing orders, be add one if budget and manpower allow or simply interim vessels before sold/gifted to border force, or any one of our neighbours that have the capability to use and maintain them. That is the only ship that can fill the gap if it exists, anything else is fantasy.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
We had a ship building plan from the late eighties / early nineties that was cut back by Keating and killed by Howard. It was a plan supposedly paid for by not replacing Melbourne, freeing up cash to build greater numbers of more capable surface combatants. The thinking was helicopters on everything, point or area defence missiles on everything, and harpoon on everything.

The following is what I believe to have been the pathway to where we ended up.

Initially two US built FFGs were ordered as replacements for the Daring Class DDs, instead of locally built DDLs. They were recognised as less capable and effective than the DDGs they were supplementing and, not meeting the RANs requirements and inferior to other options examined. The numbers were increased by another two US built ships to replace the first two DEs as well, and then as I understand it once the carrier capability was canned, it was planned to build another six FFGs locally to replace the remaining DEs and increase surface combatant numbers over all.

Along the way there were defence reviews and rationalisation and privatisation of the industry and the submarine replacement program starting, with two additional FFGs being ordered built at Williamstown under the Australian Frigate Program. This was primarily to kick off local shipbuilding after a long hiatus with the Dutch M Class being considered as well before the in service FFGs won out.

The ANZAC project followed this, with the MEKO 200 winning out over the M Class (which had a lot of supporters in the RAN) and a cut down and bob tied Type 23. I have heard a rumour that the RAN did try to secure six full blown ASW configured Type 23s instead of eight ANZAC patrol frigates with their "for but not with" configuration, which would have been interesting as they could have made use of the FAA legacy Sea Kings.

Around this time a strategic analysis determined that in times of conflict the RAN would need to control various regional choke points to protect trade and prevent access by hostile forces. This required an increase in numbers overall, a substantial increase in capability for the eventual patrol boat replacement, i.e. a NATO Sea Sparrow / ESSM and Harpoon armed, missile armed helicopter equipped, corvette (the origin of the failed Super Sea Sprite acquisition)

As I understand it the initial assumptions and numbers recognised the extra capability of the DDGs over the FFGs and saw their replacement as separate to the eventual FFG replacement. This led to suggestions of a US or licence build of Flight IIA Arliegh Burke's to replace the DDGs and a stretched ANZAC or German Type 123 frigate to replace the first four FFGs.

Somewhere along the line three new DDGs, four FFG replacements and two FFG MLUs, became variously three new DDGs and six FFG MLUs (known as FFGUP), or no new DDGs, but six new FFGs and two FFGUP, and finally six FFGUP, the DDG replacement deferred, or rolled into the eventual FFG replacement, and the corvette brought forward to follow straight on from the ANZAC.

The final iteration saw corvette cancelled and pb's life extended, the FFGUP cut from six to four FFGs, a failed attempt to fit AEGIS and SM-2 to the already built and building ANZACs (ANZAC WIP). AWD kicked off as a DDG replacement, planned to be in service before the upgraded FFGs were due to retire, which would then be replaced by a new build type, which in turn would be followed by and ANZAC replacement.

Instead the un-upgraded FFGs were retired without replacement, the ANZACs received ASMD upgrade, and the AWD became a program to replace the four FFGUPs. PBs were replaced by glorified aluminium dingies with tentative plans to replace the eight ANZACS with six new frigates.

Considering the amount of time and money wasted stopping and starting ship building, kicking off projects, reducing and cancelling projects, moving builds around the country based of the political influence of local members etc. we haven't done too bad, especially when you factor in the LHDs. When people start talking about chopping and changing things I get very worried, especially as there are already impacts on the OPV project from a certain WA shipbuilder using political influence to gain access to the project they were quite deliberately, with good reason, locked out of.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The ANZAC project followed this, with the MEKO 200 winning out over the M Class (which had a lot of supporters in the RAN) and a cut down and bob tied Type 23. I have heard a rumour that the RAN did try to secure six full blown ASW configured Type 23s instead of eight ANZAC patrol frigates with their "for but not with" configuration, which would have been interesting as they could have made use of the FAA legacy Sea Kings.

The final iteration saw corvette cancelled and pb's life extended, the FFGUP cut from six to four FFGs, a failed attempt to fit AEGIS and SM-2 to the already built and building ANZACs (ANZAC WIP). AWD kicked off as a DDG replacement, planned to be in service before the upgraded FFGs were due to retire, which would then be replaced by a new build type, which in turn would be followed by and ANZAC replacement.

Considering the amount of time and money wasted stopping and starting ship building, kicking off projects, reducing and cancelling projects, moving builds around the country based of the political influence of local members etc. we haven't done too bad, especially when you factor in the LHDs. When people start talking about chopping and changing things I get very worried, especially as there are already impacts on the OPV project from a certain WA shipbuilder using political influence to gain access to the project they were quite deliberately, with good reason, locked out of.
Nice summation Volk, and agree, looking at the current path we have not done too bad at all, could have been better, but hindsight is a wonderful thing !

Do you think had we gone the T23 path, would it have been with the UK weapons and systems or do you think we would have changed to the US systems and weapons of the day ?

Was not aware there was an attempt to fit Aegis and SM-2 to the ANZAC's ? will have to see what I can find on that, do you have any reading on that at all ?

And agree, we have ended up in not too bad a position, could have been better with hindsight, but never the less, we are where we are ! Still have some faith in the general direction and intention of the ship building program and the bigger picture over time.

And fully agree that certain WA shipbuilders need to stick to making Aluminium fishing boats !!

Cheers
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
WIP (Warfighting Improvement Program) was a proposal in the mid 90s to add a phased array radar (never actually decided to be SPY-1) and a second Mk 41 where the space and weight had theoretically been reserved, alongside the present one. It would have been the same length (tactical) as that already fitted so wouldn’t have handled SM-2 but would have provided a better magazine capacity, 16 Sea Sparrow, in the days before ESSM appeared. There were also a number of other contemplated enhancements. It was abandoned because, quite simply, it wasn’t achievable on a hull of that size and ESSM appeared - and a suggestion of a hull plug was never seriously considered.

The first real proposal for a DDG-2 replacement in the late 90s was to acquire the Kidds second hand but that was knocked back in the context of the then financial, political and strategic environment, and in the aftermath of the perception of the LPAs in their then state.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks for that.

Wasn't SPY-1F in consideration for WIP?

I recall one of the reasons the Kidd's were canned was two FFGs would have to be dropped from FFGUP and retired to free up the required manning. This was said to be unacceptable as a minimum of six air defence ships was required to meet RAN operational obligations. Considering program was cut to four FFGs and they were replaced by only three DDGs the concern for quantity over quality does seem quite ironic.
 

Massive

Active Member
I have concerns of a fleet of 11 Destroyers / Frigates going into the late 2020's.
We have done the best we can with the ANZAC's and the Hobarts are impressive ships that will serve us well, but it is a numbers game.
The numbers need to match the need that results from your strategy.

Personally I think we could reduce the Hunter buy to 6, with a target fleet of 3 Hobarts and 6 Hunters.

But my strategy may well be different to yours.

Regards,

Massive
 

Massive

Active Member
What are we cutting?
This is always the key - something needs to be cut or the budget needs to be increased.

You can argue for an increase in budget giving the rate in which the strategic environment is changing. However, I wonder if we have the capability to deploy that budget given the enormous amount of activity that is already planned for the next decade.

Regards,

Massive
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Good to see Junior Warfare Officers getting a taste of wind and salt spray the old fashion way.
Sail Training Ship Endeavour has been unable to continue her youth programmes during the COVID crisis and has been re-employed to introduce new officers to the sea.
im sure they will gain a better appreciation of the wind and waves by spending a few weeks here rather than standing 15metres above the surface on HMAS Choules.
Young Endeavour supports Navy training - APDR
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Good to see Junior Warfare Officers getting a taste of wind and salt spray the old fashion way.
Sail Training Ship Endeavour has been unable to continue her youth programmes during the COVID crisis and has been re-employed to introduce new officers to the sea.
im sure they will gain a better appreciation of the wind and waves by spending a few weeks here rather than standing 15metres above the surface on HMAS Choules.
Young Endeavour supports Navy training - APDR
Should put junior seamans branch ratings on it as well; ODs and ABs. Would give them a good background as well.
 
Top