Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

There were no significant issues with the Aegis system in the DDGs. Most of the issues encountered with the CS related to the Australian Tactical Interface; and in particular with the integration of certain items of kit that were “white boxed” until late in the productionisation process.

You have to book places in the Aegis production line; ours were based on the original schedules for the ships so they had to sit around for a while, but that was negotiated with the USN to minimise it as the program changed.

 

[iambuzzard]

A couple of points on the Hunter build cost.

I suspect if we built any modern large warship in Osborne Park, the cost would be significantly higher than in its indigenous shipyard. Be that a Burke, baseline T26, Maya or KDXIII. So a big component of the price is because we elected to build a frontline cutting edge warship in Australia from scratch with almost no supply chain or deep experience. We will get a capability for that additional cost, which has use in the future, and it would be expected that future batches have a lower cost from learnt efficiencies. That capability is the ability to make weapons independently of others when our neighbourhood has deteriorated and our allies can't help us. We could have perhaps avoided this expense had we not stopped ship construction following the ANZAC and AWD builds. This is the cost of that short sighted decision. The question is do we value this or not.

Secondly, the Hunter is expensive because the equipment going into it is expensive. The drivetrain for instance is designed to a submarine noise suppression specification that is multiple times the price of a standard Naval drivetrain that you would see on say a Burke. The Brits pay a lot for this in their T26 as well. The question is do we want ships with high end equipment to be able to counter enemy systems that are also high end.

Thirdly the Hunter is expensive because we had limited ability to keep it as a specialised single capability platform as per the British T26. It had to be multi purpurse on top of the ASW specialisation because it will need to operate independently in hostile environments. This point drove all the changes for the more powerful combat system and radar package. Our Navy is simply not big enough for single purpose ships and we would need to accept a much larger fleet to enable specialised platforms. The Brits can afford to send a T45 and T26 on a joint deployment, but even then only just. I will note here that our single biggest limiting factor on the size of the Navy is people. The question is do you want a smaller fleet of multipurpose warships with a smaller crew footprint, or do you want to pay for a larger fleet of single purpose vessels that must operate together with a larger crew requirement.

The fourth point driving expense is a view that undersea warfare will become the most concerning future threat environment. At the moment we mostly see that air warfare is the dominant and we talk about missile defence and offence. In 10-15 years (when the Hunter will come online in numbers), I would view that will switch to staffed and autonomous submarines as our single biggest operational threat. Instead of VLS capacity, we will be talking about noise supression, sonar sensitivity, helo capability and drone interoperability. ASW is more expensive and complex than AAW. The question here is do you want a warship built for tomorrow's threat environment or today's.

If the answer is yes to the above questions, then it unfortunately costs a lot of money. I feel like much of the critism is akin to asking for a Ferrari because we want to go professional racing, but expecting it to be the cost of a Hyundai.

Well said, Sammy

 

[Todjaeger]

There were no significant issues with the Aegis system in the DDGs. Most of the issues encountered with the CS related to the Australian Tactical Interface; and in particular with the integration of certain items of kit that were “white boxed” until late in the productionisation process.

You have to book places in the Aegis production line; ours were based on the original schedules for the ships so they had to sit around for a while, but that was negotiated with the USN to minimise it as the program changed.

I keep trying to recall when Australia placed the orders for the Aegis and SPY-1 arrays which went into the Hobart-class but I have not relocated the announcements, I do recall though that it was quite early, likely before the design itself had been selected and other contracts signed. The first two SPY-1 panels were completed by 29 July 2008, which IIRC would have likely taken at least 18 months from the time the order was placed by Australia.

 

[Bob53]

Arbitrary % of GDP as defense budget doesn't make sense because it does not take into account the size of the GDP (denominator) as well as the capacity to absorb the increase.

There's such a thing as too much money and not enough people to run all the new kit.

Don’t forget as the economy grows ( the tax take seemingly grows regardless of the economic growth …especially in Victoria but I digress) we seem to find money for a commensurate %increase in other areas although over the past 6 years it’s more often borrowed money. To me freeze spending where you don’t want it to grow and any additional tax take feeds to the areas where it’s wanted. Of course that will cause outrage but I would imagine to tax paying Australians who in the main seem to scratch their heads where all the money is going …it would be probably deemed palatable. The problem lies in that only about 50% of Australians pay tax and a large chunk of them get money back in subsidies like childcare and family allowance. So something like this may not have broad support.

 

[Bob53]

I would suggest that rather than investing money in US shipyards that the money be invested into ASC in Adelaide. Offer to build Virginia class modules in Adelaide and ship them to the US for integration into the finished product. This would allow the workforce to be built up and get experience prior to SSN-AUKUS.

There are lots of things that money could be spent on. Starting with Boxer, Redback and K9 SPG’s. And yes, some sort of Air Defence network over major bases probably wouldn’t go astray.

There is just about time to develop a Hawk replacement, the UK and Japan could possibly be interested in a joint program. It would probably be an idea to develop a light fighter variant at the same time along the lines of Hawk 200 or the F/A-50.

Basically, spend any increase in spending on equipment, weapons and increasing industrial capability.

It would be a difficult to answer no. USA Yeah we are really serious about building more subs. OZ we can help build some modules here that will help you speed up delivery and we will help pay for more yard capacity in the US yards at the same. Time. We just want to be guaranteed a few second hand subs in the 30s…. USA…Ummmm

 

[seaspear]

I understood current U.S laws to prohibit U.S navy warships or major hull components in foreign shipyards under the Byrnes-Tollefson amendment
10 U.S. Code § 8679 - Construction of vessels in foreign shipyards: prohibition., there is also the Jones act which effects commercial shipping

U.S. Maritime Policy Needs an Overhaul – War on the Rocks

U.S. maritime policy is a grievous failure. Whether evaluated in terms of effectively meeting national security requirements or bolstering the country’s

warontherocks.com

 

[John Fedup]

I understood current U.S laws to prohibit U.S navy warships or major hull components in foreign shipyards under the Byrnes-Tollefson amendment
10 U.S. Code § 8679 - Construction of vessels in foreign shipyards: prohibition., there is also the Jones act which effects commercial shipping

U.S. Maritime Policy Needs an Overhaul – War on the Rocks

U.S. maritime policy is a grievous failure. Whether evaluated in terms of effectively meeting national security requirements or bolstering the country’s

warontherocks.com

Yep. and until their pollies realize that the US needs allied foreign shipyards to help out, the USN combat and commercial ships needed for defence will be SOL.

 

[swerve]

Why do you think the F-35 is “hugely expensive”?

The aircraft itself (-A model here) is actual very competitive on cost with any other current Western fighter.

IIRC development has been very expensive, so it could be fair to say "hugely expensive" for the development project.

But spread over a lot of aircraft, so not a huge amount per airframe.

 

[hauritz]

Yep. and until their pollies realize that the US needs allied foreign shipyards to help out, the USN combat and commercial ships needed for defence will be SOL.

Absolutely America needs foreign ship building yards. The US is not a big ship builder. Its industry is fully stretched just building ships for its own navy.

In WW2 it was America’s industrial might that won them the European and Pacific wars. In particular it was their ship building industry, which was by far the biggest in the world, that kept the supply lines open in the Atlantic and allowed them to dominate in the Pacific.

Now days they rank around number 6 and it is a highly protected industry that almost entirely reliant on its military for ship orders.

China on the other hand boasts a much larger ship building capacity than America.

How much bigger?

By some accounts China’s ship building capacity is 232 times greater than the US and is currently building 62% of all the world’s ships.

Really the US needs to do everything in its power to establish another Nuclear submarine production line in Australia. We shouldn’t be sending money to the US to somehow help them ramp up their own production line. Instead we should pump that money into our own submarine industry and start building modules for the Virginias.

That would help us develop our own capability more quickly while at the same time boosting US submarine production rates.

Unfortunately this won’t happen under Trump, or any other US president for that matter.

 

[iambuzzard]

I understood current U.S laws to prohibit U.S navy warships or major hull components in foreign shipyards under the Byrnes-Tollefson amendment
10 U.S. Code § 8679 - Construction of vessels in foreign shipyards: prohibition., there is also the Jones act which effects commercial shipping

U.S. Maritime Policy Needs an Overhaul – War on the Rocks

U.S. maritime policy is a grievous failure. Whether evaluated in terms of effectively meeting national security requirements or bolstering the country’s

warontherocks.com

Off topic, but does that affect Air Force One?

 

[SammyC]

Absolutely America needs foreign ship building yards. The US is not a big ship builder. Its industry is fully stretched just building ships for its own navy.

In WW2 it was America’s industrial might that won them the European and Pacific wars. In particular it was their ship building industry, which was by far the biggest in the world, that kept the supply lines open in the Atlantic and allowed them to dominate in the Pacific.

Now days they rank around number 6 and it is a highly protected industry that almost entirely reliant on its military for ship orders.

China on the other hand boasts a much larger ship building capacity than America.

How much bigger?

By some accounts China’s ship building capacity is 232 times greater than the US and is currently building 62% of all the world’s ships.

Really the US needs to do everything in its power to establish another Nuclear submarine production line in Australia. We shouldn’t be sending money to the US to somehow help them ramp up their own production line. Instead we should pump that money into our own submarine industry and start building modules for the Virginias.

That would help us develop our own capability more quickly while at the same time boosting US submarine production rates.

Unfortunately this won’t happen under Trump, or any other US president for that matter.

I think the US is actually in a bind here.

Their laws preventing foreign shipbuilding was implemented to protect workforce employment. To unwind that means antagonising unions. That's the equivalent of deliberately kicking a hornets nest. Can't see Trump wanting to start that fight as it impacts on his voter base.

Secondly, even if the US did manage to clear the above hurdle, most international ship yards are at or near full capacity for their own host nation (or will be soon). Japan has very little space, S Korea has some, but not a lot. The Eurpoeans are about to go nuts on their own requirements. We are building several ship yards (two surface ship and one submarine), but they will be at full capacity for our needs very soon. We couldn't for instance start making Virginia subs for the US while simultaneously also making AUKUS subs for ourselves. Likelwise I would struggle to see S Korea or Japan making more than a handful of Burkes for the US.

As an aside to the above and to your point on establishing a Virginia production line in Australia, I do sometimes wonder if the US might try to coerce Australia to establish a Virginia production line rather than an AUKUS one. The UK would be the massive looser, but I'm not sure Trump would care about that. The US might benefit from a faster cadence that permits Australia building for its own needs and the US simultaneously. I wouldn't be surprised if that is something that comes out of their current review. Food for thought.

Perhaps what can be done is for the US to support/enable foreign providers (Austal and Hanwa come to mind) to build new shipyard facilities in the US and this appears to be what they are doing at the moment. That is however not a fast strategy, as the construction phase is likely to take the best part of a decade, and it still has to resolve obtaining sufficient skilled labour (the US has the same problem we do with labour scarcity).

 

[John Fedup]

Off topic, but does that affect Air Force One?

Don't believe there is any law preventing this, but politically, an A380 (the only other suitable 4 engine jet) would be difficult. The customization would be just as complex as the 747 process.

 

[StevoJH]

Absolutely America needs foreign ship building yards. The US is not a big ship builder. Its industry is fully stretched just building ships for its own navy.

In WW2 it was America’s industrial might that won them the European and Pacific wars. In particular it was their ship building industry, which was by far the biggest in the world, that kept the supply lines open in the Atlantic and allowed them to dominate in the Pacific.

Now days they rank around number 6 and it is a highly protected industry that almost entirely reliant on its military for ship orders.

China on the other hand boasts a much larger ship building capacity than America.

How much bigger?

By some accounts China’s ship building capacity is 232 times greater than the US and is currently building 62% of all the world’s ships.

Really the US needs to do everything in its power to establish another Nuclear submarine production line in Australia. We shouldn’t be sending money to the US to somehow help them ramp up their own production line. Instead we should pump that money into our own submarine industry and start building modules for the Virginias.

That would help us develop our own capability more quickly while at the same time boosting US submarine production rates.

Unfortunately this won’t happen under Trump, or any other US president for that matter.

At the end of the day it comes down to orders and money. The US hasn’t been ordering 2.3 Submarines for the last 20+ years, so industry reduced capacity to match demand.

The US now wants to increase SSN build rates at the same time as building a new fleet of SSBN’s, so the capacity has to be rebuilt.

Same thing with Surface ships, the USN didn’t order any frigates for 25-30 years after the FFG-7’s, so all the yards that built them closed down.

Place a large enough order and industry will expand, it will take time and be expensive, but it will do it.

 

[Morgo]

I think the US is actually in a bind here.

Their laws preventing foreign shipbuilding was implemented to protect workforce employment. To unwind that means antagonising unions. That's the equivalent of deliberately kicking a hornets nest. Can't see Trump wanting to start that fight as it impacts on his voter base.

Secondly, even if the US did manage to clear the above hurdle, most international ship yards are at or near full capacity for their own host nation (or will be soon). Japan has very little space, S Korea has some, but not a lot. The Eurpoeans are about to go nuts on their own requirements. We are building several ship yards (two surface ship and one submarine), but they will be at full capacity for our needs very soon. We couldn't for instance start making Virginia subs for the US while simultaneously also making AUKUS subs for ourselves. Likelwise I would struggle to see S Korea or Japan making more than a handful of Burkes for the US.

As an aside to the above and to your point on establishing a Virginia production line in Australia, I do sometimes wonder if the US might try to coerce Australia to establish a Virginia production line rather than an AUKUS one. The UK would be the massive looser, but I'm not sure Trump would care about that. The US might benefit from a faster cadence that permits Australia building for its own needs and the US simultaneously. I wouldn't be surprised if that is something that comes out of their current review. Food for thought.

Perhaps what can be done is for the US to support/enable foreign providers (Austal and Hanwa come to mind) to build new shipyard facilities in the US and this appears to be what they are doing at the moment. That is however not a fast strategy, as the construction phase is likely to take the best part of a decade, and it still has to resolve obtaining sufficient skilled labour (the US has the same problem we do with labour scarcity).

Honestly this is a really sensible outcome. When I first heard about AUKUS I remember clearly thinking - why do we need the UK in this? I think the SSN AUKUS is a sop the UK industry.

The best solution is for a combined SSN construction enterprise across all three AUKUS nations with a common design, rather than SSN AUKUS and the US’ SSN(x). There are huge economies of scale and interoperability benefits from doing this.

But that would make too much sense.

 

[StevoJH]

Honestly this is a really sensible outcome. When I first heard about AUKUS I remember clearly thinking - why do we need the UK in this? I think the SSN AUKUS is a sop the UK industry.

The best solution is for a combined SSN construction enterprise across all three AUKUS nations with a common design, rather than SSN AUKUS and the US’ SSN(x). There are huge economies of scale and interoperability benefits from doing this.

But that would make too much sense.

I was thinking the opposite way to be honest. Politically and economically the UK seems like a much safer partner in this then the US.

The US is just so much bigger than us that they have all the power in the relationship. They have the ability to make it effectively an overlord/vassal relationship rather than a partnership of equals or near equals.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is only involved due to legacy provisions of the UK-US MDP that permitted the transfer of the reactor for HMS Dreadnought (S101).

 

[Volkodav]

Let's be honest, the US pressure on allies is about two things:

1. Letting them cut their spending.
2. Allies buying more equipment from US suppliers.

There is no grand strategy involved, it's outsourcing and rent seeking pure and simple.

The most complex part of it, which may not even have been intentional, it the creation of chaos on the international stage, to create the environment where additional defence spending is required.

The thing is, the only gear the US has, that we can't get somewhere else or build locally (that we don't already have) is the Virginia's, and that's what they are iffing and erring about providing.

 

[SammyC]

Let's be honest, the US pressure on allies is about two things:

1. Letting them cut their spending.
2. Allies buying more equipment from US suppliers.

There is no grand strategy involved, it's outsourcing and rent seeking pure and simple.

The most complex part of it, which may not even have been intentional, it the creation of chaos on the international stage, to create the environment where additional defence spending is required.

The thing is, the only gear the US has, that we can't get somewhere else or build locally (that we don't already have) is the Virginia's, and that's what they are iffing and erring about providing.

100% agree, couldn't have put it better myself regarding understanding the American psychic.

In regards to American equipment, a lot of it is really good. I think the SM/ESSM missile families are best in class. AIM/AMRAM and JASSM/LRASM families are also best in class. PATRIOT has thoroughly proven itself in Israel and Ukraine, better than any other system. Aegis is best in class. The F35 is best in class, as is the Growler. Following on, the C17 and C130 are best in class. The UH60M and MH60R are best in class, as is the Apachi. HIMARS with PrSM is best in class. All of these investments have been and will be high value for money, and our best course of action is to double down on them. So I have no problem with the "invest in American gear strategy" because it is good stuff, robust, mature, and can be obtained in the near future

We can hedge against American chaos by building American owned factories in Australia to produce American designed equipment, and by underwriting build programs on US soil through upfront investment (aka submarines) and long term substantial orders (SM2/SM6) from American located factories. I would not consider it a bad investment if we cofunded RTX to expand their existing standard missile production line in Arizona.

That's not to say other international equipment is not good. I think the Boxer, Redback and Huntsman systems are good, and I have a very high opinion of the NSM/JSM. Thales make the very best sonar systems. The classic and upgraded Mogami is the best GPF frigate hands down that is available.

And we have made a few good bits of kit of our own. The Bushmaster is brilliant, we should have marketed this way better to the world. Ghost Bat and Ghost Shark have substantial future potential if not starved of R&D funding and ordered in too few numbers. Nulka was revolutionary, but probably now needs an update. CEA's radars are world beating.

Submarines are an interesting one. My view is that the AUKUS submarine is better tailored to Australian needs (its smaller, nimbler, more automated), but I also think the overall program could have been a whole lot simpler if we were to just build Virginias in Australia.

It's a mature design, which removes all the technical risk and long lead engineering effort. We just have to skill up to build it, and could leverage significant American support for this (we have people embedded in HII and EB at the moment). Its like the FFG program, where we elected to just build the American design with no tinkering. Certainly wasn't our worst project by a long shot.

It might be a little bit of overkill, cost more per build, and have a higher sustainment cost (primarily people), but it could conceivably be constructed sooner than an AUKUS sub.

 

[SammyC]

I was thinking the opposite way to be honest. Politically and economically the UK seems like a much safer partner in this then the US.

The US is just so much bigger than us that they have all the power in the relationship. They have the ability to make it effectively an overlord/vassal relationship rather than a partnership of equals or near equals.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is only involved due to legacy provisions of the UK-US MDP that permitted the transfer of the reactor for HMS Dreadnought (S101).

I suspect you are correct, in that the original US interest was because of the nuclear reactor IP transfer.

I have a personal view that we have always been a vassal country, just we have in the past elected to tart it up as being a deputy or loyal friend so that it is more palatable. We will always be a vassal in the future as well, we are not big enough to be independent and we live in a hostile part of the world. Our choice is who do we want to be a vassal to.

I also think the American interest in AUKUS has evolved with time, with the US now having increased value in a rotational base and maintenance facility that they can use to resolve their shockingly bad maintenance upkeep, and provide safe respite to their crews. It's why I think this will be at the front of the pile of activities that the US will tell us to speed up.

They are also getting our very best people free of charge to crew their own subs at the moment. We will shortly represent a major recruitment source. They may get hooked on this and want more. The US has a significant problem with staffing, in particular with subs.

I also have a feeling that as the Americans try and unpick the Virginia construction rate (which is going to be very difficult, if not impossible in the near term), they may see our ship yard (which will be modern and capable) as a useful resource and a way out of their own mess.

A deal that says we will build 8 SSNs for our needs and 8 for the US over a 20 year period could be an option. A partnering with HII or Electric Boat could provide more resourcing than BAE ever could to get a yard into construction well before 2030. Rolls Royce could perhaps still build our reactors (the major UK component), just to the USN design.

Perhaps we are too far down the AUKUS route for this to work now without extensive relationship damage and wasted investments.

Wouldn't be the first time we have found ourselves in this position.

 

[Stampede]

I was thinking the opposite way to be honest. Politically and economically the UK seems like a much safer partner in this then the US.

The US is just so much bigger than us that they have all the power in the relationship. They have the ability to make it effectively an overlord/vassal relationship rather than a partnership of equals or near equals.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the US is only involved due to legacy provisions of the UK-US MDP that permitted the transfer of the reactor for HMS Dreadnought (S101).

Overlord / Vassel relationship is a serious concern
There is always a political balancing act between being in an alliance and maintaining a degree of sovereignty.
I hope the Virginia purchase should it prevail still provide us that balance.

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

IIRC development has been very expensive, so it could be fair to say "hugely expensive" for the development project.

But spread over a lot of aircraft, so not a huge amount per airframe.

It was yes, but a large part was it was across developing effectively 3 different fighter types and in any case it's a sunk cost at this point. There is no such thing as a "cheap" fighter development program these days. F-35 seems to attract that "expensive" tag based on that sunk cost though, whereas other modern fighters do not, which I always find a curious point.

However that may be, it doesn't change the facts though, for someone buying an aircraft today the F-35A is not a particularly expensive fighter aircraft when compared to it's rivals.