Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Morgo]

If the idea is to expand production at Henderson then a MOTS replacement for the LCHs is a start.
Plenty of existing designs to chose from.

If it is to increase combat power, them a small batch of lightly Australianised (CMS, radar, weapons and possibly engines)

If instead of building a bigger combatant we wanted to get more smaller but still capable ships, faster. I would be taking a long hard look at the Mogami design. As @ddxx suggested. In terms of crewing, you could build two Mogami for every Anzac it replaced. Instead of four light covettes, you could have four real frigates. Armed with 16 VLS (which could have ESSM, SM-6), 5", 8 antiship missiles, Searam, hangar, torpedos, they would be capable small ships. For each anzac you replaced you would be gaining 24 new VLS.. The ships would be more open sea worthy and longer ranged with greater than the 7 day endurance of the corvettes being mentioned.

Agreed per my earlier post. We need more amphibious logistics.

One other suggestion that may be heresy on a RAN thread…. if the issue is that we need more VLS as quickly as possible, do those “VLS” need to be on the water? Why not:
- acquire LCH / LST in significant numbers; and
- expand and accelerate the acquisition of HiMARS loaded with PrSM, LRASM and Patriot, accompanied by towed NASAMS / NSM batteries.

The potential extended range of PrSM out to 1000km+ now the US has left the INF is a real game changer and means a much larger area can be subject to denial.

This doesn’t need an LHD to show up every time to make this work. A capable fleet of LSTs would be just as useful in providing smaller dispersed groups of RAA with mobility and sustainment.

 

[oldsig127]

They recommend the following be considered:

"The Government review its decision to prioritise a slow continuous shipbuilding program over the strategic risk described in the Strategic Update 2020. Could SEA 5000 deliver capability at a significantly faster tempo and at a lower cost-per-unit if the Navy acquired more than 9 frigates, or built additional frigates for allies such as New Zealand?"

Noting that:

"The Strategic Update 2020 highlights Australia’s rapidly deteriorating strategic environment, yet the Government has deliberately structured the frigate program so that it delivers capability more slowly (extended to 2044) and at greater cost (an additional A$9.3 billion)."

Yes, and there's the rub. I'd lay odds that they considered ONLY the hardware, and not the crewing, training and other issues. How confident are they NZ would cooperate? I'm NOT, my Kiwi relatives would laugh in my face for suggesting it and they are a Navy family. Anyone else might want one and have a few billion to spare?

oldsig

 

[Redlands18]

Yes, and there's the rub. I'd lay odds that they considered ONLY the hardware, and not the crewing, training and other issues. How confident are they NZ would cooperate? I'm NOT, my Kiwi relatives would laugh in my face for suggesting it and they are a Navy family. Anyone else might want one and have a few billion to spare?

oldsig

Yes the quoted price for the RN ships is the build price of the 8 Ships, the quoted price for Australia is for Sea 5000 and that is a lot more then just the 9 Ships.
@oldsig127 I had no problems opening that link.

 

[cdxbow]

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:

Short sighted by the Congress and reflects bumbling by the USN. Need to do the unmanned thing 'SpaceX style', rapid prototyping, be accepting of failure at times, willingness to take risks, run through a few iterations quickly and get some prototype platforms up an running. Use MOTS/COTS extensively to speed things up and avoid delays. There's no real technical stoppers to the USN building a large and effective unmanned fleet quickly. The stoppers are largely in their heads and within their organizations.

 

[ddxx]

Yes the quoted price for the RN ships is the build price of the 8 Ships, the quoted price for Australia is for Sea 5000 and that is a lot more then just the 9 Ships.

Absolutely, here's a more accurate per hull figure as per senate estimates (transcripts linked):

Projected Cost Per Tonne for the first three Hunter Class Frigates - $257,000 (Source)
Estimated Light Ship Weight for the Hunter Class - 8,200 tonnes (Source)

So based on these figures, you're looking at a hull only cost for the first three of around $2.1b per ship.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes, and there's the rub. I'd lay odds that they considered ONLY the hardware, and not the crewing, training and other issues. How confident are they NZ would cooperate? I'm NOT, my Kiwi relatives would laugh in my face for suggesting it and they are a Navy family. Anyone else might want one and have a few billion to spare?

oldsig

I wouldn't trust NZ to cooperate. Nothing that have seen since 1997 gives me any confidence that NZ pollies wouldn't renege on any deal that they may have signed.

 

[icelord]

One could even follow the other, the time taken for the LCH replacement build will allow the basic redesign of Mogami for Australian content.

Given its size the Mogamis could even be based in Cairns and Darwin.

I agree Mogami is a interesting design and Japan has done great work in the design but their Defence industry has very little experience with exporting designs outside of their home. Would be a high risk program.

They wouldn't be based in Darwin or Cairns.

OPV will be a test of the northern bases Cyclone response plans and may result in dry docking south during the wet season.

ACPB were to be dry docked on hard stand during the Wet with knowledge that if Cyclone warning came through then they would need to be able to emergency sail. It was rare to see 2 Armidales on hard stand during this time in deep maintenance as trying to crash sail from a hard stand would take time without factoring tides, divers, crews etc.

Ships need a dock/Hard stand for emergency repairs that prevent sailing. Darwin is building a 5000t dry dock for ABF and ADF use, which would be part of the OPV plans. But I'll wait to see how they go first Cyclone watch. A full Frigate up there with OPV or Cape would just cause Captains nightmares during Wet season.
Ship lift to be built in Darwin

 

[Stampede]

I agree Mogami is a interesting design and Japan has done great work in the design but their Defence industry has very little experience with exporting designs outside of their home. Would be a high risk program.

They wouldn't be based in Darwin or Cairns.

OPV will be a test of the northern bases Cyclone response plans and may result in dry docking south during the wet season.

ACPB were to be dry docked on hard stand during the Wet with knowledge that if Cyclone warning came through then they would need to be able to emergency sail. It was rare to see 2 Armidales on hard stand during this time in deep maintenance as trying to crash sail from a hard stand would take time without factoring tides, divers, crews etc.

Ships need a dock/Hard stand for emergency repairs that prevent sailing. Darwin is building a 5000t dry dock for ABF and ADF use, which would be part of the OPV plans. But I'll wait to see how they go first Cyclone watch. A full Frigate up there with OPV or Cape would just cause Captains nightmares during Wet season.
Ship lift to be built in Darwin

Thanks for the link

Just wondering could this future lift accommodate an ANZAC class frigate.

HMAS Anzac - 3600 t , 118 Length over all , 109 waterline.

Lift - 103m ship lift capable of lifting vessels up to 5,000 tonnes


Regards S

 

[vonnoobie]

Absolutely, here's a more accurate per hull figure as per senate estimates (transcripts linked):

Projected Cost Per Tonne for the first three Hunter Class Frigates - $257,000 (Source)
Estimated Light Ship Weight for the Hunter Class - 8,200 tonnes (Source)

So based on these figures, you're looking at a hull only cost for the first three of around $2.1b per ship.

At those figures it appears our ships will be cheaper then the UK.

9.87 billion pounds for 8 ships at historical average AUD to GBP of 1.8 to 1 gives a ship price of just north of $2.2 billion AUD for the RN. When also factoring in our ships being larger then per a ton ours are under those numbers are 20% cheaper then UK built ships.

When giving price per ton they tend to mean the entire ship outfitted minus munitions etc.

 

[ASSAIL]

I agree Mogami is a interesting design and Japan has done great work in the design but their Defence industry has very little experience with exporting designs outside of their home. Would be a high risk program.

They wouldn't be based in Darwin or Cairns.

OPV will be a test of the northern bases Cyclone response plans and may result in dry docking south during the wet season.

ACPB were to be dry docked on hard stand during the Wet with knowledge that if Cyclone warning came through then they would need to be able to emergency sail. It was rare to see 2 Armidales on hard stand during this time in deep maintenance as trying to crash sail from a hard stand would take time without factoring tides, divers, crews etc.

Ships need a dock/Hard stand for emergency repairs that prevent sailing. Darwin is building a 5000t dry dock for ABF and ADF use, which would be part of the OPV plans. But I'll wait to see how they go first Cyclone watch. A full Frigate up there with OPV or Cape would just cause Captains nightmares during Wet season.
Ship lift to be built in Darwin

I don’t think that there’s any problem riding out a storm on the handstand. Like most, the current Paspaley synchro lift has a very well oiled routine for lashing down and bracing all sizes of vessels even though the current lift is only 2,500 tonne capacity and I would be confident an Arafura or Anzac would have no problems.

 

[icelord]

Thanks for the link

Just wondering could this future lift accommodate an ANZAC class frigate.

HMAS Anzac - 3600 t , 118 Length over all , 109 waterline.

Lift - 103m ship lift capable of lifting vessels up to 5,000 tonnes


Regards S

Unlikely. ANZAC being 118 to 103m ship lift, while that encompass 15m of the bow overhang you wouldnt want that when moving about. ANZAC has redundancy that allows it to "limp" back to a larger dry dock for repairs so Darwin would be least likely to do the docking cycle of ANZACs but I could be wrong if someone knows better.

Being capable for 5000t will ensure it can lift an OPV (80m 1640t) safely. However Larekeyah and HMAS Coonawarra upgrade plans do have a new hardstand construction involved. Unsure if this will lead to a new ship lift upgrade.

The lift is looking at 150 ships a year so they may be positioning for vessel maintenance in resource sector to the West. Being Paspaley owned means they will have their fleet utilising it often.

I don’t think that there’s any problem riding out a storm on the handstand. Like most, the current Paspaley synchro lift has a very well oiled routine for lashing down and bracing all sizes of vessels even though the current lift is only 2,500 tonne capacity and I would be confident an Arafura or Anzac would have no problems.

I totally agree and Coonawarra does have extra restraint markers for such an event but...you want to be the Ship Captain or Norcom who has to ring CN or CDF at 4am to explain why that "Minor weather event" has a patrol boat listing heavily port side...permanently

 

[Stampede]

Can we please reflect on why the 18 month drumbeat was selected. It was to ensure we maintained the capability (equipment, facilities and trained workers) to build ships on an ongoing basis. Defence have noted the yard can punch ships out at a faster pace and undertake other projects but .... what the want to avoid is the extraordinary amount of time and cost re-establishing that capability when we let it die for a lack of work. Part of the delay in the Hunter is the need to build this skills and the reason two OPV's are being built at Osbourne is to retain them.

I note the author provides little evidence to back up his estimate. Comparing costs between the FFG62, the T26 and the Hunter is fraught with danger as we do not know what is included in that costing of each. The Australian costing includes whole of life, support facilities and a new ship yard and associated training systems. The author's only suggestion is to build more ships for others but get ours done quick. If the orders don't come in then we face another hiatus which will have a significant cost. If we do get orders ... all good and them the building rate can be adjusted.

Warning for those hunting around for other hulls. A new project will not see the light of day built in Australia for at least 4 years (and that would a miracle) as there is nowhere to build them unless you push the Hunter back. It is not just the shed, it is the logistics chain and the trained and competent workers . Building them overseas removes the establishment of a logistics support mechanism and make Australia reliant on others.

We are in fantasy fleet world folks and the sense of humour of some of the Mods is waning.

Is this the article that started the current conversation?

ASPI - Dr Marcus Hellyer

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/delivering-stronger-navy-faster

Do defence long term construction programs trump strategic need or is it the other way around?

A difficult balancing act that changes by the year.

No easy answer.

Given the fleet we have to day will be the same fleet we have in a decade, but for the Arafura variants ,are we satisfied with this situation?

If yes - stay the course.

If not - we need to find a very quick solution.


Regards S

 

[Pusser01]

Unlikely. ANZAC being 118 to 103m ship lift, while that encompass 15m of the bow overhang you wouldnt want that when moving about. ANZAC has redundancy that allows it to "limp" back to a larger dry dock for repairs so Darwin would be least likely to do the docking cycle of ANZACs but I could be wrong if someone knows better.

The Anzacs fit onto the AMC floating dock which is only 99m long with a bit of over hang at the bow & stern. They are also able to be traversed onto the hardstand from the dock. Cheers.

 

[vonnoobie]

$9.3 B is a lot of money. If that number is correct we should seriously consider building new ships as efficiently as possible and selling off our excess stock at bargain basement prices. I have no idea what that drumbeat would be but $9.3B represents 2 extra ships.

Even if we gave a couple of ships to New Zealand we would be no worse off financially.

Drumbeat currently planned is every two years based upon recent links posted in this thread, going to one year and building two extra ships with the savings still leaves your seven year gap unfilled.

That all aside the report is a very poor one when the list 2016 figure for 8 x Type 26's for the RN at 8 billion pounds even though 2017 they came out as 9.87 billion pounds which is 2020 is 10.58 billion pounds or at a historical average of 1.8 to 1 for AUD to GBP over $19 billion AUD or $2.3805 billion AUD per a ship which shows using the correct figures that report has underpriced the RN builds by over 16%.

Not does it factor in the US industry and even the UK industry is geared towards larger production then Australia so they can build more faster, or that the US with a larger fleet and not the mainland not as close to threats as Australia can afford to have a basic frigate compared to that of Australia.

Under current 2 year drumbeat with a fleet of 12 surface combatants and continuous building we have a planned service life of 24 years each. To get things a little faster I see only one sustainable option, move to 18 month drumbeat and comparable service life (depending if 12 to 14 hulls) and skipping MLU. Ships have 18-21 year lifespan avoiding risky upgrades and avoiding late in life issues. Even that will take time to iron out any links in Hunters but should start Hobart replacement program ASAP to avoid any potential gaps.

 

[Massive]

... history ... has taught us that a Pacific wide war does require amphibious warfare capability and that is something that we should have.

It also taught us that it does require aircraft carriers. I don't see a path to this capability for the RAN though - it would need to be provided by an ally if the ADF was not to just stay at home.

Regards,

Massive

 

[seaspear]

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:

Further down in the article shows congress did block the U.S.N on arming ships via the MK41 VLS
"Since last year’s National Defense Authorization Act, Congress explicitly forbade the Navy to install its ubiquitous MK 41 VLS launcher on its LUSV prototypes." if you are not allowed to install a VLS on a launch platform like the various LUSVs how do you assess it ?

 

[ddxx]

I note the author provides little evidence to back up his estimate

Do you mean in regards to the $9.3b figure being due to the slow drumbeat?

If so, that figure isn't an estimate, it's from Defence's own response in senate estimates - the author references this.

I don't see a path to this capability for the RAN though - it would need to be provided by an ally if the ADF was not to just stay at home.

That's potentially somewhat at odds with the 2020 Strategic Update:

“The ADF must increase its self-reliant ability to deploy and deliver combat power and reduce its dependencies on partners for critical capability.”

“These adjustments are necessary to ensure the future ADF can project military power to shape our environment …”

“Australia’s naval and maritime forces are a vital element of our defence strategy. They must be able to project force at long range from Australia (and) operate across vast distances …”

“The Government has directed Defence to implement a new strategic policy framework that signals Australia’s ability – and willingness – to project military power and deter actions against us.”

 

[oldsig127]

I don’t think that there’s any problem riding out a storm on the handstand. Like most, the current Paspaley synchro lift has a very well oiled routine for lashing down and bracing all sizes of vessels even though the current lift is only 2,500 tonne capacity and I would be confident an Arafura or Anzac would have no problems.

Not recommended at all, but it IS possible to tootle about in Darwin harbour during a cyclone. Or so I'm told.

oldsig

 

[vonnoobie]

Do you mean in regards to the $9.3b figure being due to the slow drumbeat?

If so, that figure isn't an estimate, it's from Defence's own response in senate estimates - the author references this.

Except I searched up that reference, found it and no where at all in any of the answers provided by defence did they admit, indicate or imply that the time line meant a $9.3 billion increase.

Additional Documents – Parliament of Australia

Go to number 26 and read that PDF. In actual fact one of the question and I quote

"Please provide an estimate of the total additional cost premium for building the Future
Frigates at less than the most efficient tempo."

The defence answer to that as per the authors sourced document

"There is no additional premium"

Quite frankly that author has made numbers up and provided sources that disprove what he wrote. I would highly suggest turfing the document aside because it is not worth it.

 

[icelord]

Not recommended at all, but it IS possible to tootle about in Darwin harbour during a cyclone. Or so I'm told.

oldsig

Having sailed in the tale of a Cyclone on Anzacs and been on Armidales at their Sea State limits...id rather punch myself in the nutsack for 24hrs then go through a Cyclone in Darwin Harbour. Crocnado coming right at you!