Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
They are already fitted in some RAN ships to enable on the spot manufacture of some items.
 

Bob53

Active Member
Interesting read, love how they have a pic of an Astute on an article about getting the Virginia's :D

Initial thought's, very plausible indeed, palming off the back half or so for US construction as the nuclear component is passable I think to the public and easily explained.

The US method of block/segment construction that then get's brought together for consolidation and stitching together has some merit and could offer a quicker path to floating a boat, would think an increase in block construction from a US perspective as opposed to building an entire boat would be very much within their current capability without putting time pressure on their domestic build.

Interesting indeed
Suggested along these lines in another thread and was binned for it Though I was suggesting Australia could specialise on certain sections of the hull. if There’s is any legitimacy in this article it’s seems a US boat is the direction we are heading.

Re the discussion on the extra DDG …why on earth start another line? It makes more sense to develope. AWD versions of the Hunter.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
That's the Minister for Defence Industry Melissa Price (also a sandgroper so will be obviously pushing hard for WA to get a slice of any new ship/boat building project)
Ah, that explains why she was in such a prominent position.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It's what the UK did for the Polaris boats - it all had to happen in a hurry (which may sound both familiar and relevant) so the UK arranged to build the front bit and tack it on to the bit with all the magical moon beams supplied by the US - final assembly of both parts happening in a UK yard.


Astute is built in modules (rings effectively) and they have some very large welding jigs on site which allow the rings to be rotated such that the welding always occurs at the correct angle relative to gravity - ASC may have something similar already

I'm wondering if the Australian contributions could sections shipped to the construction yard and final assembly and trials would happen in the originating country ?


Thing is, the driving force behind the Collins design was to make sure the issues with supporting the O-boats didn't re-occur - that all the spares chain would be domestically produced as far as possible. Going nuclear is a direct U turn on that.

I'm not complaining - hearing our Australian allies are going nuclear was the best (and most astonishing) defence announcement of the year.
I love the way they move from the clear (if lacking detail) response from the DEFMIN and Vice Admiral Mead to 'other sources'. Seriously the only folk that know what will come out of this are those involved in the 18 month review. Everything else is speculation (some of which seems to be wishful thinking based on what the individuals views are). What we know from the releases are:
  • Leasing second hand boats appears to be out (good thing too)
  • The boats will be built at ASC (work on that yard continues)
  • The reactor will be built overseas (whether or not it is incorporated in a hull plug ... who knows)
  • The time lines are speculative noting the comment about what 'in the water means (hopefully sooner rather than later)
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Suggested along these lines in another thread and was binned for it Though I was suggesting Australia could specialise on certain sections of the hull. if There’s is any legitimacy in this article it’s seems a US boat is the direction we are heading.

Re the discussion on the extra DDG …why on earth start another line? It makes more sense to develope. AWD versions of the Hunter.
There are no issues with the US making certain parts for us, however we will never make and export sections back to the US, against their rules of play :)

Agree about the DDG's
 

Morgo

Active Member
There are no issues with the US making certain parts for us, however we will never make and export sections back to the US, against their rules of play :)

Agree about the DDG's
On the use for potential excess shipbuilding capacity:
1) I don't see how it is practical to bring forward a AAW Hunter variant ahead of the ASW/GP variant. It'd make more sense to bring forward the build of the Hunter's themselves, but this presumably is itself also not practical.

2) I think there is broad consensus on this thread that upgunning the OPVs is a bad idea. Trying to create a frankenstein from something halfway through a build program is not a recipe for success. The Arafura's have an important peacetime role, and in the event of an outbreak of war they will (I presume) have their hands full commerce raiding in the Indian Ocean and putting holes in the hulls of Chinese fishing boats. None of these roles need SSMs or SAMs.

Given the above, I think any excess capacity should be driven towards either:

a) Building as many of whatever is selected to replace the Balikpapan class as quickly as possible. While our ability to conduct amphibious landings may have gone through a revolution in recent years I have reservations about our ability to sustain forces once ashore. 6 (or more) of something like this would be a big help in this regard.

b) If we think increasing combat power as quickly as possible is our number one priority (which I'm not unsympathetic to) this needs to be a relatively low risk design from a trusted partner. Personally I would be calling Luerssen as they seem from the outside to have done a great job working with local industry to get the Arafura's well progressed in a short period of time. They are also in the middle of a build of four updated Braunschweig class corvettes for the Germans (K130 Braunschweig class), which seem awfully similar in hull shape and size to the Arafura's and presumably it wouldn't be much of a stretch for the Australian yards set up to produce OPVs to also pitch up some similarly dimensioned corvettes. While there would definitely be design modifications to accomodate a CEA radar, NSM instead of RBS-15 etc etc along with potentially replacing the minelaying racks with an 8 cell VLS, this doesn't seem to be beyond our capabilities and would give a vessel that seems broadly comparable to the ANZAC class in capability.

Of course if we wanted to go over the top we could go for the Israeli variant of the K130 - the Sa'ar 6. This thing appears to be a beast but I have no idea how they have managed to fit so much weaponry into such a small hull, and what compromises have been needed to do so. I can't imagine they have been small though.

On balance I think option (a) is the best course - more logistics and amphib please - but I can see some merit in option (b). No doubt I have overlooked many things that are obvious to those far wiser than I on this thread, but either of these seem like a more feasible course to me rather than attempting a pivot at this stage towards DDGs.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think these moves are not significant enough. We are dicking around the edges of the problem.

Henderson is a good yard, Civmec/Forgacs is a good outfit. The Arafura's are a doodle for them. They are sized to be able to build a destroyer if needed. Lets use that capability. Lets stop this forlorning of the lost 4th AWD. The Hobarts are fine ships, but they are not the last word in western destroyers. There was disappointment when they were selected way in the mid 2000's. The G&C was preferred and superior in pretty much all categories. Lets address the bipartisan short coming of no 4th AWD as a gift.

Build two Burke variants. Have a <3 month selection of Burke Flight III, Maya or KDX III, if you like, or just build a bloody flight III. 96 cells, minimum. Don't reconfigure the dam thing, build it essentially as spec'd. Order long lead items immediately (before selection of type). It will need Aegis, it will need a radar. Order SM3 + Sm6. Box launched LRASM. These ships will be our multilayered BMD platforms. The Hobarts can't throw up the kind of air defence we now need, this can.

Even if we do evolve a T26 Hull to be a AWD variant, when? 2055? How what will it carry? 48 or perhaps a 64 strike cells? Will we be able to tap into US upgrade developments? No. US training? No. Do US, Japan, SK operate similar types so we can integrate, share crew? No. How long is it going to take to develop, while BAE is flat out running 3 builds? What is the risk? Does the UK want it spec the same as AU? Can it be commissioned in <4 years from today? No.

This also doesn't stop you from evolving the Hunter hull later on to replace the AWD's.

Build it at Henderson. It doesn't have to interfere with ASC - this interstate bullshit stops now. Its doesn't take anything away from ASC. Maybe the sand gropers would stop trying to steal everything at ASC if we gave them something meaty.

Call it the Australia class. Class of two. HMAS Australia and HMAS Terra Australis (give it Stropshire battle honors). Everybody will get the reference, George the VI and Roosevelt won't mind.

So we end up pensioning off two Anzac frigates slightly earlier, and by ~2050 we need to find two more crews and the build program stays at 9. Cost? Its the cost of not doing it that worries me. We also intend to tear apart the Hobart's to fit a new risky big radar and newer gen combat system. What's the risk of having no DDG?

All of a sudden the hunters 32 VLS doesn't seem such a concern anymore and a bit of a delay commissioning the first won't matter if we have two proper destroyers coming on line in the immediate future. Why would we then be trying to up gun the OPV's? If you want more trouble, build more Australia's. Why frit away our crews on tiny corvettes with no endurance, speed or weapons? There may come a time where that is all we can do, but that time isn't now.

The threat is no longer a fishing fleet, or a white fleet from China. Its grey. Not to be alarmist, but to be less prepared than we were back in 1929 is insanity. Where is our HMAS Australia? We shouldn't be turning OPV's and frigates into cruisers. We don't have a tier 1 air defence ship that can provide a full spectrum AA loadout. We don't have a burke. The most popular western destroyer. One operated by our allies. We don't have a ship design ready to go, and a project ready to roll out either.
 

Morgo

Active Member
I think these moves are not significant enough. We are dicking around the edges of the problem.

Henderson is a good yard, Civmec/Forgacs is a good outfit. The Arafura's are a doodle for them. They are sized to be able to build a destroyer if needed. Lets use that capability. Lets stop this forlorning of the lost 4th AWD. The Hobarts are fine ships, but they are not the last word in western destroyers. There was disappointment when they were selected way in the mid 2000's. The G&C was preferred and superior in pretty much all categories. Lets address the bipartisan short coming of no 4th AWD as a gift.

Build two Burke variants. Have a <3 month selection of Burke Flight III, Maya or KDX III, if you like, or just build a bloody flight III. 96 cells, minimum. Don't reconfigure the dam thing, build it essentially as spec'd. Order long lead items immediately (before selection of type). It will need Aegis, it will need a radar. Order SM3 + Sm6. Box launched LRASM. These ships will be our multilayered BMD platforms. The Hobarts can't throw up the kind of air defence we now need, this can.

Even if we do evolve a T26 Hull to be a AWD variant, when? 2055? How what will it carry? 48 or perhaps a 64 strike cells? Will we be able to tap into US upgrade developments? No. US training? No. Do US, Japan, SK operate similar types so we can integrate, share crew? No. How long is it going to take to develop, while BAE is flat out running 3 builds? What is the risk? Does the UK want it spec the same as AU? Can it be commissioned in <4 years from today? No.

This also doesn't stop you from evolving the Hunter hull later on to replace the AWD's.

Build it at Henderson. It doesn't have to interfere with ASC - this interstate bullshit stops now. Its doesn't take anything away from ASC. Maybe the sand gropers would stop trying to steal everything at ASC if we gave them something meaty.

Call it the Australia class. Class of two. HMAS Australia and HMAS Terra Australis (give it Stropshire battle honors). Everybody will get the reference, George the VI and Roosevelt won't mind.

So we end up pensioning off two Anzac frigates slightly earlier, and by ~2050 we need to find two more crews and the build program stays at 9. Cost? Its the cost of not doing it that worries me. We also intend to tear apart the Hobart's to fit a new risky big radar and newer gen combat system. What's the risk of having no DDG?

All of a sudden the hunters 32 VLS doesn't seem such a concern anymore and a bit of a delay commissioning the first won't matter if we have two proper destroyers coming on line in the immediate future. Why would we then be trying to up gun the OPV's? If you want more trouble, build more Australia's. Why frit away our crews on tiny corvettes with no endurance, speed or weapons? There may come a time where that is all we can do, but that time isn't now.

The threat is no longer a fishing fleet, or a white fleet from China. Its grey. Not to be alarmist, but to be less prepared than we were back in 1929 is insanity. Where is our HMAS Australia? We shouldn't be turning OPV's and frigates into cruisers. We don't have a tier 1 air defence ship that can provide a full spectrum AA loadout. We don't have a burke. The most popular western destroyer. One operated by our allies. We don't have a ship design ready to go, and a project ready to roll out either.
Sounds sensible to me, as long as we accept the inherent inefficiencies that come with the build of a 1 or 2 ship class. If we made this decision with eyes open I think it’d be a fantastic outcome.

I do still think we desperately need more logistics capability to deploy and support forces ashore at multiple locations with limited infrastructure but this doesn’t need to be an either / or decision.

One final point about the role of the OPVs - I wouldn’t discount how important commerce raiding would be in the outbreak of war. China’s current energy problems show how precarious their energy position is. Turning off the tap on Chinese bound seaborne oil and gas in the Indian Ocean is one best pieces of leverage we have. It would cripple their economy. And the 40mm + a boarding party on the OPVs should be more than enough for an unescorted tanker.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The G&C ship was not the preferred design at the time the F100 was selected for the Hobarts; it had a number of unresolved issues which meant that to have selected it would have been high risk.

While CIVMEC have a great facility and are very keen, they are yet to actually turn out a completed ship. So let’s do them a favour and wait till the first of their build of the OPV (at least) is completed before rushing to decide that they have the capability to build much more complicated major surface combatants - and that’s even presuming that there is appetite at the top level of Government to do such a thing. And for that there is absolutely no evidence.

Then again, why start the many years long process of gearing up to build Burkes when the USN recognises that the design is near the end of its potential life, the reason for their DDG(X) program. If you were going to start another MSC line, and God knows how we would find the ship’s companies for them, pick a more modern design.
 
Last edited:

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Build two Burke variants. Have a <3 month selection of Burke Flight III, Maya or KDX III, if you like, or just build a bloody flight III. 96 cells, minimum. Don't reconfigure the dam thing, build it essentially as spec'd. Order long lead items immediately (before selection of type). It will need Aegis, it will need a radar. Order SM3 + Sm6. Box launched LRASM. These ships will be our multilayered BMD platforms. The Hobarts can't throw up the kind of air defence we now need, this can.

Even if we do evolve a T26 Hull to be a AWD variant, when? 2055? How what will it carry? 48 or perhaps a 64 strike cells? Will we be able to tap into US upgrade developments? No. US training? No. Do US, Japan, SK operate similar types so we can integrate, share crew? No. How long is it going to take to develop, while BAE is flat out running 3 builds? What is the risk? Does the UK want it spec the same as AU? Can it be commissioned in <4 years from today? No.
Good rant, but neither could we commission a Burke in <4 years. Even with an enormous effort and expense it'd be unlikely that steel was even being cut inside that time. And doing so would stop activity dead elsewhere including Adelaide. There are only so many people qualified to do the work in this country, and whatever the threat imagining them into existence isn't a solution.

oldsig
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The G&C ship was not the preferred design at the time the F100 was selected for the Hobarts; it had a number of unresolved issues which meant that to have selected it would have been high risk.
You are entirely correct. The over all G&C proposal was not as attractive as the F-100 proposal. The G&C proposed ship was generally the superior ship performance in many key factors. However the overall proposal was not. Australia was extremely risk adverse, cost focused and valued extremely highly a completed in service design.

The baby burke (G&C proposal) certainly did have unresolved issues regarding risk. We would have been building another burke variant that no one else had done. The baby burke also was trying to shrink a large design to a smaller hull, an inherently difficult/almost impossible task. It was also another paper design. We are back to what we were trying to do with the Attack class. Starting from scratch.

I am not proposing a Baby burke, I should make that clear. Why built a miniature Burke at all? Are we trying to keep to treaty limits on displacement?

Good rant, but neither could we commission a Burke in <4 years. Even with an enormous effort and expense it'd be unlikely that steel was even being cut inside that time. And doing so would stop activity dead elsewhere including Adelaide. There are only so many people qualified to do the work in this country, and whatever the threat imagining them into existence isn't a solution.
Henderson is building multiple ships right now. CivMec/Forgacs is building ships now. They are part of our long term ship building plan, at some point we have to commit to them, well, building ships. This is not a insurmountable problem. Challenging, sure. The challenge of the project would be less and lower risk than that of the first AWD being built at ASC with modules from elsewhere.

The ship building plan was about having both sites building simultaneously. Not flying in flying out people from Osborne. If we can't build a couple of surface ships, then we might as well throw in the towel now.

If we don't have a long term plan building sustainably at Henderson, then expect them (well the WA mafia) to continually white ant and undermine building at Osborne, we will be back in the dark days. Particularly if we keep redirecting work to Osborne from Henderson. Which given the Subs and the Hunter programs likely taking longer not shorter to get up and running is likely to increase.

I am certainly not attached to any specifics. The <4 years is perhaps flippant. But to put in a program that could be commissioned before the first hunter is not impossible. It is possible to build a destroyer in a hot yard in less than 8.5 years, before the end of the decade.

Getting away from the platform and back to capabilities. Should we not have a program for a large, highend BMD capable destroyer? Of all the land, sea and air projects that come and go and evaporate, even if this project didn't go ahead, it would likely feed directly into any program to evolve the Hunter into a Air warfare and at which point and how many would we need. It would also touch on Land and Air about interfacing with our allies with such platforms. Two burkes would carry more VLS than the entire RAN navy currently. A Hobart and Burke would carry almost three times the loadout of a Hobart and Anzac. With 5 DDGs, we could, have two fleets addressing our two major oceans, which we can't right now.

If we do nothing, I guess we will keep sending singularly Anzacs and their mighty 8 cell launcher into sea and airspace that is clearly and overtly contested from threats above, on and below the water. That will include waters of Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and PNG. They would simply be harassed out of the region. It certainly means disrupted trade between Australia and its major trading partners in SK and Japan as well as Taiwan. Industrially, our naval construction yards will engage in canabilistic and destructive practices. Politically, states will further separate from the feds, and further infighting and stealing. We will continue to tear ourselves apart, while being pressured from our major trading partner.

Seems bleak.
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
You are entirely correct. The over all G&C proposal was not as attractive as the F-100 proposal. The G&C proposed ship was generally the superior ship performance in many key factors. However the overall proposal was not. Australia was extremely risk adverse, cost focused and valued extremely highly a completed in service design.

The baby burke (G&C proposal) certainly did have unresolved issues regarding risk. We would have been building another burke variant that no one else had done. The baby burke also was trying to shrink a large design to a smaller hull, an inherently difficult/almost impossible task. It was also another paper design. We are back to what we were trying to do with the Attack class. Starting from scratch.

I am not proposing a Baby burke, I should make that clear. Why built a miniature Burke at all? Are we trying to keep to treaty limits on displacement?



Henderson is building multiple ships right now. CivMec/Forgacs is building ships now. They are part of our long term ship building plan, at some point we have to commit to them, well, building ships. This is not a insurmountable problem. Challenging, sure. The challenge of the project would be less and lower risk than that of the first AWD being built at ASC with modules from elsewhere.

The ship building plan was about having both sites building simultaneously. Not flying in flying out people from Osborne. If we can't build a couple of surface ships, then we might as well throw in the towel now.

If we don't have a long term plan building sustainably at Henderson, then expect them (well the WA mafia) to continually white ant and undermine building at Osborne, we will be back in the dark days. Particularly if we keep redirecting work to Osborne from Henderson. Which given the Subs and the Hunter programs likely taking longer not shorter to get up and running is likely to increase.

I am certainly not attached to any specifics. The <4 years is perhaps flippant. But to put in a program that could be commissioned before the first hunter is not impossible. It is possible to build a destroyer in a hot yard in less than 8.5 years, before the end of the decade.

Getting away from the platform and back to capabilities. Should we not have a program for a large, highend BMD capable destroyer? Of all the land, sea and air projects that come and go and evaporate, even if this project didn't go ahead, it would likely feed directly into any program to evolve the Hunter into a Air warfare and at which point and how many would we need. It would also touch on Land and Air about interfacing with our allies with such platforms. Two burkes would carry more VLS than the entire RAN navy currently. A Hobart and Burke would carry almost three times the loadout of a Hobart and Anzac. With 5 DDGs, we could, have two fleets addressing our two major oceans, which we can't right now.

If we do nothing, I guess we will keep sending singularly Anzacs and their mighty 8 cell launcher into sea and airspace that is clearly and overtly contested from threats above, on and below the water. That will include waters of Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and PNG. They would simply be harassed out of the region. It certainly means disrupted trade between Australia and its major trading partners in SK and Japan as well as Taiwan. Industrially, our naval construction yards will engage in canabilistic and destructive practices. Politically, states will further separate from the feds, and further infighting and stealing. We will continue to tear ourselves apart, while being pressured from our major trading partner.

Seems bleak.
 

seaspear

Active Member
Is there an argument for getting involved in the South Korean navy program for its destroyers, possibly building them to a basic level there and finishing here, an example of here likely cheaper
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
As desirable as it is to beef up our surface fleet in the near future. I cannot see any dramatic changes to the current build schedule within the next decade.
We are just not going to build two varieties of destroyers in two ship yards and in two different states.

If we were to go back a decade with our current world view of the challenges of our region faces today , we would probably have made different choices.

It is what it is.
So what do we do?

Certainly do the best to capitalize on our existing fleet.
If any of the platforms are deficient in weapons and sensors, then rectify within the parameters of space and weight.
HMAS Choules and the LHD's come to mind.
Build all the small stuff for Army and Navy as soon as practical.
Patrol boats / landing craft / Littoral support vessels, etc.

Keep in service those vessels that still have some life.
HMAS Sirius and Huon Class.

Add to the Air wing
Extra Romeo helicopters was a good call.
Add to the additional two P-8's
Do justice to all the future unmanned stuff.
This should be a major priority. Get a decision made ASAP.
No time for crawl walk run.
Make a call and go with it!
Time is not our friend.

So what opportunity is left with the current build schedule.
Not the Hunter Class

Just the Arafura Class.

So here is a variation on a well worn out subject.

Two Classes.

- First Tranche ( 8 / 9 Ships ) - built as is for use initially in the OPV role, with a view that they transfer to the MCM / Survey role when the second Tranche come into service.

- Second Tranche of a larger class to undertake a more robust constabulary role with additional weapons and sensors.

Use all the existing internal stuff contracted for the existing OPV's.

Engines / gear box / sensors and processing systems / comms gear / weapons etc and build them into the largest design platform that is feasible from Lurssen.

A vessel of 90 plus meters would not be unrealistic.
Enough for a dedicated flight deck and hanger for a medium sized helicopter plus space for an additional large weapons system.

Frankenstein yes.
Realistic yes.

We don't want to take a knife to gun fight ,but we do want to free up our destroyer / frigate force as much as possible.
The Arafura class as is do not provide that middle ground or options.

This is a doable solution working within existing build schedules and numbers.

This is a trade off solution for choices made in days gone bye.

Would I like an Aircraft carrier and a Godzilla sized destroyer.

Yep!

Unfortunately we did not make that call and time will now not permit us such an indulgence.

We work with what we have.
The above will give us a regionally significant and balanced fleet by 2030

Cheers


Regards S

PS - just get Navantia to build us an additional LHD
 

Morgo

Active Member
Engines / gear box / sensors and processing systems / comms gear / weapons etc and build them into the largest design platform that is feasible from Lurssen.

A vessel of 90 plus meters would not be unrealistic.
Enough for a dedicated flight deck and hanger for a medium sized helicopter plus space for an additional large weapons system.
Agree with all you've said.

So..... Australianised Sa'ar 6 it is for your second tranche?
 

seaspear

Active Member
Is there an argument for unmanned ships capable of hosting a vertical launch system to be given some consideration to augment manned ships
I note that such has been vetoed by the U.S congress
Despite this, the U.S.N are experimenting with unmanned vessels
This article suggests that the R.A.N is committed to developing unmanned vessels and even carrying in long term weapons
 

ddxx

Active Member
Agree with all you've said.

So..... Australianised Sa'ar 6 it is for your second tranche?
I love outside the box thinking in terms of actually aligning force structure with strategic policy - I’m a huge advocate for addressing this bizarre (dare I say, politicised incompetence) disparity in a timely manner.

However, it’s worth keeping in mind the Lurssen OPV 90 and other similar sized Corvette designs require a minimum core crew approaching the same size as recent GP Frigates, such as the Mogami and AH140 - and at similar price points.

As an additional acquisition, you’d be shooting yourself in the foot to take a smaller vessel with less room for lifetime flexibility with similar lifetime crewing costs.

If Lurssen can keep core crew requirements of a ‘Block II’ vessel closer to Arafura, say, well under 60, the balance may potentially be more favourable.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Perhaps beefing up the surface fleet is a good idea but careful consideration has to be given not only to the number of VLS tubes but also which type. Hypersonic missiles will require a new VLS.
 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Now moderators are jumping to fantasy fleets? You know its bad when that happens.

Im no expert but building OPV's and doing maintenance work on frigates does not exactly equat to having the facilities, expertise and capability to build an AB flight III DDG.

Generally speaking all AB DDG's and their international variations are crew heavy, Can they be operated with smaller crews?

If not (Depends on answer to previous question) well in recent times we have had trouble finding crews for our existing ships (HMAS Perth sitting around for a few years after upgrades because of no crew to man her?) So if we lack personnel to man our current fleet in full with crews of under 200 how can we man 2 x extra ships with a crew of 300+?

Wanting more capable ships is all well and good but if we cant even crew them then you are throwing money, time, resources, distractions along with trying to build a far more technical ship in a site not experienced to that amount after bad.

That all being the case, If time is a factor that is freaking everyone out and we can magically wave around a wand to acquire the extra personnel (not to mention the extra tail end service personnel) then you dont try and build it in Australia, You either A. Get a foreign yard to build it with a hot production line or B. Buy a used one that still potentially has another 20 years of life in it.

At the end of the day we are where we are, Saying you want something wont make it appear, Saying we can build something in X time wont make it so. All we can do is A. bring in more help even from overseas to help straighten out our current programs and maybe speed them up and B. Acquire what systems buy/build and field we can within the next 5 - 10 years that will aid our forces. Risking the budget and multiple other programs to build 2 extra ships and potentially stuffing up our entire naval shipbuilding program is not the answer unless its someone from the CCP in which case they will back Australia in this endeavour.
 

FormerDirtDart

Well-Known Member
Is there an argument for unmanned ships capable of hosting a vertical launch system to be given some consideration to augment manned ships
I note that such has been vetoed by the U.S congress
Despite this, the U.S.N are experimenting with unmanned vessels
This article suggests that the R.A.N is committed to developing unmanned vessels and even carrying in long term weapons
Did you actually read the article?
I read it when Larter published it 10 months ago. Congress is not opposed to armed unmanned ships, they're questioning if the Navy has been thorough in their analysis and operational concept development, while already asking to fund construction of the first LUSV ships. I.E. does the USN have an actual viable plan on what the intend to do. since they have not provided Congress with anything firm as of yet, while asking for significant funds to start building ships.
The US Congress isn't all to keen on vague plans after the LCS program. Hell, the USN has been consistently waffling on reduced manning/unmanned. And they really haven't done any testing with larger surrogate vessels yet. Which is something you would honestly expect before finalizing a ship design, and building it.
And a quote from the article:
"... “We fully support the move toward unmanned, whether that’s on the surface or undersea.” said Rep. Joe Courtney, D-Conn., who chairs the House Armed Services Committee’s sea power subpanel. “But we want to make sure ... the real nuts-and-bolts issues … are worked out before we start building large, unmanned platforms.” ..."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top