Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

For the Hobart class? I doubt it. Will defer to the pros on the Hunters.

The continuous building plan has the build for the follow on DDG occurring in 2038/39 (when Hobart will be just over 20 years from commissioning). The intent of the build programme is to avoid very expensive (and generally high risk) MLU as these often cost more that the original hull. The FFGUP is a case in point.

Even if we use the cut down SPY6 ... don’t forget the Hobart Class is tighter for space and power than an AB Block IIA and there may be other systems the RAN wish to intergrate. If a better radar is vital it may actually be easier to fit it to the late batch Hunters as these will evolve between batches. I could be wrong but it would appear to be at odds of the continuous build philosophy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would expect the Hobarts to phase out earlier rather than later. Particularly if MLU involved chucking out every major system (combat, radar, sensors), it might just be easier/cheaper to sell off the Hobart ( and build a replacement). They will still be a decent ship and at that time a number of countries would be interested in a ready to roll aegis ship.

I wonder if we will go with SPY6 anyway.

The upgrades I am sure will be another issue to fight over.
ASPI has another peice on submarine upgrades. More talk about basing in Sydney the first 6. Keeping Adelaide as the home for the Sub construction and upgrades.
Collins-class submarine upgrades should stay in Adelaide | The Strategist

 

[Boagrius]

The continuous building plan has the build for the follow on DDG occurring in 2038/39 (when Hobart will be just over 20 years from commissioning). The intent of the build programme is to avoid very expensive (and generally high risk) MLU as these often cost more that the original hull. The FFGUP is a case in point.

Even if we use the cut down SPY6 ... don’t forget the Hobart Class is tighter for space and power than an AB Block IIA and there may be other systems the RAN wish to intergrate. If a better radar is vital it may actually be easier to fit it to the late batch Hunters as these will evolve between batches. I could be wrong but it would appear to be at odds of the continuous build philosophy.

Interesting, that is news to me. I had assumed the Hobarts would be around for the routine ~30+ year service life. If the hulls are that tightly packed a new build (evolved Hunter or something else) probably makes sense.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would expect the Hobarts to phase out earlier rather than later. Particularly if MLU involved chucking out every major system (combat, radar, sensors), it might just be easier/cheaper to sell off the Hobart ( and build a replacement). They will still be a decent ship and at that time a number of countries would be interested in a ready to roll aegis ship.

I wonder if we will go with SPY6 anyway.

The upgrades I am sure will be another issue to fight over.
ASPI has another peice on submarine upgrades. More talk about basing in Sydney the first 6. Keeping Adelaide as the home for the Sub construction and upgrades.
Collins-class submarine upgrades should stay in Adelaide | The Strategist

Honestly, I doubt that Australia would be able to sell the Hobart-class destroyers, precisely because of the SPY-1D arrays and Aegis CMS. The ITARS and FMS restrictions on that would require US approvals unless the arrays and CMS and any/all other US kit was stripped out, at which point the emptied hulls become much less valuable. Not to mention the costs Australia would incur removing the required kit.

 

[alexsa]

Honestly, I doubt that Australia would be able to sell the Hobart-class destroyers, precisely because of the SPY-1D arrays and Aegis CMS. The ITARS and FMS restrictions on that would require US approvals unless the arrays and CMS and any/all other US kit was stripped out, at which point the emptied hulls become much less valuable. Not to mention the costs Australia would incur removing the required kit.

Agree .... unless it was to a similarly entitled nation (even then it is not easy .... and the entitled nations are generally building their own) then it is just not worth it. I doubt NZ is going to be interested but there ‘may’ be nations such as Chile that the US may be open to ..... but this is not something you can plan for.

I suspect we would pull through what we could use for other units in the fleet and dismantle the rest. I don’t see large MLU of the sort we saw with the Perth Class, ANZAC class and FFG’s (not to mention the DE’s) as these were done to extend the life of current platform pending replacement (and dealing with the poorly considered fitted for but not with option). The continuous build is a better option given it can allow platforms to evolve in batches (getting rid of block obsolescence... such as HMAS Perth when she was delivered) and ensure a large part of the fleet is close to the cutting edge.

The only way I see a Major MLU being done is if the political situation has turned to custard and we are rearming like mad..... but then I have been wrong before.

 

[Milne Bay]

.

The only way I see a Major MLU being done is if the political situation has turned to custard and we are rearming like mad..... but then I have been wrong before.

Even only a couple of years back I would have said the same.
Unfortunately I think that there is plenty of custard around the corner, and carving the defence pie to serve with it is going to get more and more difficult, and I dare say - expensive.
MB

 

[Boagrius]

Even only a couple of years back I would have said the same.
Unfortunately I think that there is plenty of custard around the corner, and carving the defence pie to serve with it is going to get more and more difficult, and I dare say - expensive.
MB

What "custard" are you anticipating here? I get the growing size and modernisation of the PLAN is a concern, as is their likely pursuit of basing in the South Pacific but I'm not as yet aware of a likely flashpoint that would bring us into direct conflict.

 

[Takao]

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...5b-to-build-and-maintain-20191129-p53fds.html

Much as I respect our armed forces they really need to get better at breaking down the costs into simple easy for dummies to understand presentations cause even I get a little worried when I see the out turned cost of SEA1000 at $80 billion and sustain, update and upgrade them at $145 billion. Would love to read the transcripts of the hearing but at the moment they still aren't up and not sure how long the wait is. The ADF pumping out big numbers isn't doing them selves any favors, Its hurting there case cause they aren't or cant show exactly where the money is going in what estimated years. Dont get me wrong media loves to hype, But ADF just feeding the beast at the moment.

I disagree, but.....

Having spent the year in this world (Excel is so much better than shooting or flying or driving a ship or similar...) of updating an IIP - everything that the article says is true - but it's Defence's breakdown for dummies that has caused the confusion.

I apologise if I'm telling you to suck eggs, but...

Each project has two parts, acquisition and sustainment. They are kept separate for two reasons, one to do with out-turning and one to do with how the money is managed. Normally the sustainment gets converted into a top up of the Material Sustainment Agreement between CASG and the Capability Manager to provide all the fleet "stuff" after the project has shut down. So acquisition goes to "Successful Tenderer 1" and sustainment to CASG.

Government uses out-turned money - the cost of the money in those dollars. Constant is easier though, it allows sliding of money across years (hence balancing of risk and priority) and allows comparing across time. It makes life entertaining if you are investigating what should go in, stay out or be moved, because all that matters outside Russell is out-turned. So you play with constant to get a plan, brief it and get told the figures are wrong....

In the article, Defence documents have been used to generate three figures that make it seem doom and gloom:

The cost of building the 12 French-designed submarines has crept up from an expected $50 billion three years ago. The head of the Navy's submarine program, Greg Sammut, told a Senate estimates hearing on Friday the "out-turn cost" - the actual cost of the build calculated at the end of the project - was now estimated to be at least $80 billion.

This was on top of the cost to "sustain, update and upgrade" the submarines until 2080, which was estimated to total $145 billion when adjusted for inflation.

It was $50 b in 2017/18 (at a guess) constant dollars. That's constant, so if we hypothetically had to move Attack Class to start in 2035/36, it'd still be $50 b.

Because Government uses out-turned, and they start in 2017/18, they cost $80 b. Those two numbers are the same.

But that's just the acquisition cost. You still have to sustain it - so that's where the second number comes from - $145 b. Most of that won't go to Navy, it'll go to CASG to be managed on CN's behalf.

Now, Defence could have said $225 b for submarines and walked away - but they've tried to break it down to sustainment and acquisition. Which is helpful, if you understand the nuance. The constant figure should never have been released, but eh - it's not hard to work it backwards. It just complicates the matter. Overall though, it's about as much detail as you are going to get. The security and commercial restrictions - especially with something like subs - mean you can't break it down too much more. Even spend spreads are sensitive - knowing when Defence expects to pay, how much and what currency means you can get much more intel than just "1x boat every 2.5 years". Unfortunately, 12 boats built in Australia is going to cost a lot of coin. It's up to Russell to have done the intellectual hardwork to make it justifiable.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Unfortunately, 12 boats built in Australia is going to cost a lot of coin. It's up to Russell to have done the intellectual hardwork to make it justifiable.

I think its clear why it seems only Australia uses turned out dollars for project costs, in any other country it just seems like bad marketing. Journalists don't seem to really understand it either. Obviously we need to spend another $1m on journalist education. While Russel has to justify it, the politicians need to sell it to the electorate. These subs better be bloody fantastic.

But of that $220 billion most of that is spent here then rattles around the economy. People pay taxes, people buy things etc. It doesn't just disappear. This is the great benefit of building, basing and sustaining them here. 60 years of spending locally.

Also, I notice the complete lack of traction that article has gotten. Again, I think people do value the submarines, while there will be criticisms all the time, and every man and his dog has his preferred platform, the end is even the public can see we need to have some dam thing. This seems to have gotten less traction than the fear of not enough lithium ion batteries. I also think the sub cost is done to death and this is just its latest stupid form.

Honestly, I doubt that Australia would be able to sell the Hobart-class destroyers, precisely because of the SPY-1D arrays and Aegis CMS. The ITARS and FMS restrictions on that would require US approvals unless the arrays and CMS and any/all other US kit was stripped out, at which point the emptied hulls become much less valuable. Not to mention the costs Australia would incur removing the required kit.

There would be a few countries I think they US could be quite happy with favored status. Philippines, Brazil, Poland, Indonesia? Singapore? Norway? Spain? Somewhere in the ME? Particularly if it locks them in as an Aegis country. The FFG's have mostly US equipment, and there were a number of interested parties. While they wouldn't be ideal for leading a task force in 2040, they would still be quite acceptable in making up the numbers. I would imagine SAAB would be quite happy to fit just a full singular 9lv setup and we could always jam Ceafar onto them for a great price.

 

[seaspear]

Would there be a possibility of selling the Hobarts to N.Z in fifteen years and converting the Flight 2 batch of Hunters to A.A.W ?

 

[t68]

Would there be a possibility of selling the Hobarts to N.Z in fifteen years and converting the Flight 2 batch of Hunters to A.A.W ?

Not likely they would have to be really cheap and the kiwis would have to factor in a an MLU into it as well. Most likely be cheaper to get a new build with the latest incarnation from either AU/UK/CA

 

[Todjaeger]

There would be a few countries I think they US could be quite happy with favored status. Philippines, Brazil, Poland, Indonesia? Singapore? Norway? Spain? Somewhere in the ME? Particularly if it locks them in as an Aegis country. The FFG's have mostly US equipment, and there were a number of interested parties. While they wouldn't be ideal for leading a task force in 2040, they would still be quite acceptable in making up the numbers. I would imagine SAAB would be quite happy to fit just a full singular 9lv setup and we could always jam Ceafar onto them for a great price.

With SPY and an Aegis CMS aboard, I would see the US having little (or at least less) issue with them being purchased by Norway and/or Spain. However, both of those are existing SPY/Aegis users with currently new vessels only a little older than the Hobart-class, and with Spain in particular being the design source for the class and a builder of similar vessels I do not see either country being particularly interested in purchasing a 2nd hand destroyer in 20 years or so, unless something major went pear-shaped and they were desperate for vessels.

Poland (being a NATO member) might be eligible for SPY and Aegis and might still be interested in 2nd hand vessels in two decades, but by that time they might also prefer to be doing new, domestic builds fitted with a then current sensor fit.

Singapore might also be able to purchase SPY and Aegis, but I honestly do not think they would be interested in 2nd hand vessels that would require a refit and MLU to be up to dealing with current threats.

Unless both relationships and capabilities change considerably, I also do not think that the Philippines, Brazil and Indonesia would be both eligible for SPY and Aegis, interested in 2nd hand vessels so kitted out, and able to support them.

 

[seaspear]

Not likely they would have to be really cheap and the kiwis would have to factor in a an MLU into it as well. Most likely be cheaper to get a new build with the latest incarnation from either AU/UK/CA

I believe you get what you pay for I dont believe a type 31e would be comparable to a servicable Hobart class that may have fifteen years on the clock but has all the bells and whistles compared to something built to a price ,the price of a second hand Hobart may be close to less capablle new builds,I believe it would be in Australias interest for N.Z to have very capable ships and certainly Australia is then able maintain its building program longer to replace those ships

 

[spoz]

I think we may be getting a little ahead of ourselves here. With Sydney not yet commissioned it might be a little early to start suggesting we give them away. Plus, I seem to remember there is already a project to upgrade parts of the Hobart CMS as Aegis is managed by the USN through a series of rolling major and minor mods. Whether they would ever need a MLU in the way the fag boats did is, at this stage anyway, a moot point.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With SPY and an Aegis CMS aboard, I would see the US having little (or at least less) issue with them being purchased by Norway and/or Spain. However, both of those are existing SPY/Aegis users with currently new vessels only a little older than the Hobart-class, and with Spain in particular being the design source for the class and a builder of similar vessels I do not see either country being particularly interested in purchasing a 2nd hand destroyer in 20 years or so, unless something major went pear-shaped and they were desperate for vessels.

Poland (being a NATO member) might be eligible for SPY and Aegis and might still be interested in 2nd hand vessels in two decades, but by that time they might also prefer to be doing new, domestic builds fitted with a then current sensor fit.

Singapore might also be able to purchase SPY and Aegis, but I honestly do not think they would be interested in 2nd hand vessels that would require a refit and MLU to be up to dealing with current threats.

Unless both relationships and capabilities change considerably, I also do not think that the Philippines, Brazil and Indonesia would be both eligible for SPY and Aegis, interested in 2nd hand vessels so kitted out, and able to support them.

• With SM3 deployed in Poland I imagine the Aegis part is doable. While Poland is looking at building ships, they are in a vulnerable position that could put them in a situation looking for a ship with reasonable manpower/operating requirements and Aegis.
• Norway is already a frigate down, but 20 years is a long time in the future, but again they are in a situation which puts them right in tight situation. Given the right climate, it could be something they consider. But typically they aren't in the 2nd hand market.
• Spain might take it on and offer a MLU and on sell to someone else. But then again it has its own Frigates that by then would be looking pretty ancient and putting them onto market as well. The younger build might be more attractive to somebody.
• Singapore has purchased 2nd hand ships before. The Hobarts would be a size bigger than anything they have operated before so might only be taken on as a short term effort.. However, at the right time, having something that could operate with US/Australian forces in the region when pressure is particularly high.
• I think Philippines Brazil and Indonesia really depend on what happens in the next 20 years. I agree not in the current climate, but that could change.
• 20 years is a long time into the future, Chile just purchased some FFG's.. Maybe they might be interested in some older Hobarts to replace those.

I agree none of those seem quite likely. Its also likely they won't be the only F-105's on offer when they do go from the RAN.

Maybe we keep them around and make the RAN a 14-15 surface combatant Navy in 2040+. Then we just incorporate the continuous build based around replacing 15 ships. It doesn't even have to cost anymore in terms of procurement.

 

[Todjaeger]

• With SM3 deployed in Poland I imagine the Aegis part is doable. While Poland is looking at building ships, they are in a vulnerable position that could put them in a situation looking for a ship with reasonable manpower/operating requirements and Aegis.
• Norway is already a frigate down, but 20 years is a long time in the future, but again they are in a situation which puts them right in tight situation. Given the right climate, it could be something they consider. But typically they aren't in the 2nd hand market.
• Spain might take it on and offer a MLU and on sell to someone else. But then again it has its own Frigates that by then would be looking pretty ancient and putting them onto market as well. The younger build might be more attractive to somebody.
• Singapore has purchased 2nd hand ships before. The Hobarts would be a size bigger than anything they have operated before so might only be taken on as a short term effort.. However, at the right time, having something that could operate with US/Australian forces in the region when pressure is particularly high.
• I think Philippines Brazil and Indonesia really depend on what happens in the next 20 years. I agree not in the current climate, but that could change.
• 20 years is a long time into the future, Chile just purchased some FFG's.. Maybe they might be interested in some older Hobarts to replace those.

I agree none of those seem quite likely. Its also likely they won't be the only F-105's on offer when they do go from the RAN.

Maybe we keep them around and make the RAN a 14-15 surface combatant Navy in 2040+. Then we just incorporate the continuous build based around replacing 15 ships. It doesn't even have to cost anymore in terms of procurement.

As I see it, there are two different paths any hypothetical on-sale of Hobart-class vessels could follow.

These two paths are either as a largely emptied vessel/hull, with most sensors, shipboard electronics, weapons and CMS removed (which IMO would dramatically reduce or eliminate any US ITARS or FMS issues) however any purchaser would then need to carry out a fairly thorough MLU to get something other than a destroyer-sized patrol vessel. The alternative would be for a number of major systems like SPY and/or the Aegis CMS to be retained, which IMO would cause the US to be quite careful about who was allowed to purchase the vessels. Please keep in mind that currently there are only a half-dozen nations, including the US, which field Aegis and apart from the US, two are NATO members and the other three have a status with the US as major, non-NATO allies. I do not really foresee Brazil, Indonesia or the Philippines having a close enough relationship to the US to be permitted to get SPY and/or Aegis, unless the systems have become so obsolete in which case they would need replacement anyway.

Singapore currently is operating fairly new frigates which commissioned just over a decade ago, which are also about half the displacement. Singapore might be permitted to acquire SPY and/or Aegis, but IMO it would be really questionable whether or not it would be worth it for them to purchase one or more significantly larger surface vessels which are 2nd hand, in 20 years. By my estimate, I would expect that Singapore would either be in the process of, or have just completed replacing their Formidable-class frigates. With that in mind I really do not see why there would be interest or value to Singapore in getting vessels which would be due to a major MLU.

Norway is currently down a frigate, which could use replacement now, not 20 years in the future with what might be a one-off class for the RNoN. Particularly since the current Aegis-kitted frigates would also likely be due for replacement at the time the RAN might be interested in disposing of the Hobart-class destroyers. With that in mind, I would expect that the RNoN would have a programme again either underway or just completed to replace their frigates when the RAN might be looking for buyers.

I honestly would discount any notion of Spain purchasing the Hobart-class on speculation, since that would also run into ITARS and FMS issues unless the vessels were stripped, and then Spain would need to find buyers for the vessels while also finding a way to at least break even in terms of costs to acquire, carry out any upgrades and then on-sell them.

Poland I also discount having any interest in the vessels, since the Polish Navy largely operates in the confined waters of the Baltic Sea and seems to be moving their warship acquisitions to smaller surface vessels which are under 2,000 tonnes and a length of 100 metres or less. If one looks at the current makeup of the Polish fleet, as well as some of the ongoing projects, warships the size of a DDG would really not fit. If the Polish Navy was looking conduct blue water operations things would be different, but at present it seems the concern is much more littoral ops.

 

[OPSSG]

Guys, can we consider not discussing Singapore as a purchaser of 2nd hand Hobarts in this RAN thread? This sort of development is very unlikely (x3000) as:

1. Singapore has its own naval ship building industrial base to protect (i.e. strong preference to place order for navy ships from ST Marine) and has locally developed/modified CMS and modules starting with the littoral mission vessels (eg. USV modules or even a medical module) to be used for all classes of ships as plug and play;

2. As a small navy that has to fight in the littoral zone, the RSN has a different concept of operations from the RAN — leading to very different naval ship design choices and trade-offs. The Vanguard 130 mothership design concept (see: IMDEX 2019: ST Engineering unveils Vanguard 130 multi-role combatant concept | Jane's 360) that was introduced by ST Marine at IMDEX 2019 is probably indicative of RSN priorities (for the up coming Victory Class replacements). IMHO, the RSN needs lean manning for its 6 existing Formidable Class frigates and very lean manning for its future replacement frigates — as Singapore will have a bigger manning crisis ahead in the 2030s onwards;

3. Hobarts are not cost effective for Singapore, as:

(i) there only 3 of the class (to replace 6); and

(ii) it has missiles and radar systems that are different from SAF’s existing investments and future system of systems roadmap (whereas the ASTER missile is being used by both the RSAF and RSN); and​

4. Singapore not only requires sovereign control of some key technologies it acquires (i.e. favourable existing defence science relationships with France, Germany and Israel — some access to source codes and so on), the country also engages in some level of risk diversification by not only buying American weapon systems that come with a lot of strings attached. Currently, all Singapore fighters (F-16, F-15 and F-35), attack helicopters and naval helicopters are American made. Buying more systems that come with a US veto, in the era of America First, may not be in Singapore’s defence science and industrial base interests — as the US government has prevented or restricted Singapore access to some technologies that the country is willing to pay for to further develop (eg. with Abraham Karem and his team at Frontier Systems that the US is not using), in the past. Singapore is committed to investing and developing its defence industrial base, R&D base, and acquisition expertise; but is not doing it alone. Thus it is important to maintain defence science partnerships with the French, the Germans, the Israelis and others, to enable Singapore to go further than travelling alone. The goal is to collaborate to go far; not just go fast.

 

[ASSAIL]

Discussing disposal of the Hobarts is a waste of effort.
No one can predict the strategic circumstance in 20+ years, not only for the RAN but for many of the navies touted as recipients.
“If” they are to be replaced in just 20 years I suspect they would simply be properly preserved and mothballed until their relevance dwindled at which time they will be scrapped.
This leaves options for our capability planners in an increasingly unstable strategic environment.

 

[Volkodav]

The US Navy does plan to retrofit a scaled down version of the SPY-6 (the SPY-6(V)4) to Flight IIA Burke without the major modification needed on the Flight III, so I don't see Hobart Class receiving the same kind of upgrade as infeasible.

With an eye to China and Russia, the US Navy plans a lethal upgrade to its destroyers

The trouble is SPY-1 D(v) was a very tight fit on the F-100 base design, the ships are also tight in terms of access to remove and replace major items of equipment. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that even if it was possible it would be difficult and expensive, as well as highly likely to have major compromises.

The Hobart Class procurement is appearing more and more to be a repeat of the Perth acquisition, very capable ships that are transformational for the RAN, yet did not fully meet the RANs actual requirements and required extensive and expensive upgrades to remain viable, often falling behind the curve during their service lives. David Shackleton suggested that the Belknap Class may have proven better value for money for Australia than the Adams, once the cost and risk of extensive upgrades were factored in to the overall cost of ownership, the same could be said for a Flight IIA Burke verses the F-100.

The Adams Class (Perths) were good ships but they were the cheapest option that came close to what was required, Shackleton states that it was fortunate nothing cheaper was available. I believe the same can be said of the Hobarts.

 

[Volkodav]

I watched some of the Defence and Foreign Affairs Committee in session on Friday and I have to say Admiral Sammut must have the patience of a saint. Some of the questioning would make your eyes bleed such as a failure to grasp the difference between actual pressure hull production start and hull verification welding before production start.
I think Rex Patrick, though condescending in making out Summut as his equal, at least understood the concept of technology updates as the builds programme advances.
What the press and half the committee seemed to not understand was the concept of cost expressed in today dollars as opposed to allowing for cost inflation over the life of the build along with the cost of “contingencies” let’s not all here fall into that hysterical nonsense.

My wife works in the finance industry, where a large number of polies come from (finance and law seem to be the big two these days), and discussions at functions with these people are a real struggle, many of them quite literally have no idea about anything outside of their industries. There also seems to be a general assumption that Australia is only good at finance, resources, primary industry and tourism, nothing else.