Naval Power - Australia: Which vessels? How many?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2023
- The Defence Strategic Review has stated that the Navy's surface combat force must change. What will the new surface combat fleet look like? How many vessels will there be, and what will they look like?
Related briefings:
Australia's New Fighting Force - the ADF after the Defence Strategic Review - • Australia's New Fighti...
SSN AUKUS - Australia's Future Nuclear Submarine - • SSN AUKUS - Australia'...
Option 4:
Tier 1: Six Hobarts, six Hunters
Tier 2: Twelve general purpose frigates and there are many to choose from; Navantia offer the ALFA in 3000 and 4000 tonne varieties, Babcock have the Arrowhead 140, BMT have the Venator 110, there's the latest iteration of the MEKO 200, or even Babcock's original Arrowhead 120 tendered for the Type 31. All are around the size of the Anzacs, but obviously much more modern and with a much heavier weapon load, and through improvements in automation, smaller crews - generally around 80 to 120 personnel.
Corvettes simply don't have the range, endurance or weight capacity for future upgrades that the RAN will need. With respect to the OPVs, either transfer them all to the ABF (along with the Capes; the RAN should divest itself from border protection and constabulary duties) or convert them into anywhere from six to nine MCM vessels. This would take quite a bit of engineering however, to ensure adequate garage space and launching facilities for the UUVs and UAVs that are beginning to populate the MCM and HGS fields. By way of comparison, BMT's Venari-85 and Naval's City-class MCMs offer a good insight into this new breed of MCM and HGS ships.
Dollars and crewing will obviously need to be accounted for, but a dozen Tier 1 and a dozen tier 2 will ensure proficiency and potency in ASW, ASuW and air warfare, with built-in redundancy and plenty of hulls to ensure availability.
A powerful option, but also expensive. We might have a better idea next month.
What is more likely Tier 1: 2x Canberra's with some 8 cell VLS tubes to pack in 32 ESSM missiles. 3 x Hobarts with an extra 16-32 VLS cells at the rear, 12-18 total Hunters with a minimum 48VLS and forget about anything else that is making them so heavy. Tier 2: Arafura's to do missions that the Huons, Paluma's and Leeuwins do and give them a fast firing 57mm bofors and phalanx ciws for air defence when doing there duties. Get rid of the boats from the upper deck and put searam in there place. A big no to any of those other smaller frigates you mentioned and hand the evolved capes over to the ABF. As for the subs that is hard because we definetly won't be getting those virginia's because there just isn't going to be any for us to have unless we build them ourselves in Adelaide which might actually be the thing to do.
The other option 4; Travel backl in time about 10 to 15 years, go to the South Koreans and Japanese, point at their surface and submarine fleets and say "Give us some of those."
@@Strategy_Analysisthe opv was designed to deploy/recover the LUUV, if you convert to corvettes and reduce the number of hunters we will be left with no ASW capability. The only real threat is subsurface, any surface vessels will be suppressed by the RAAF.
We'll need to see what the Corvette parameters are, if they go down that path. They can have significant ASW capabilities, albeit at the expense of surface and air warfare capabilities.
I really like the format and approach you have taken. the premise of it being a "briefing" is very good and the flat monotone delivery adds weight. Thanks Dave
Thanks, much appreciated. It's done in an "intelligence briefing" style. Obviously modified for UA-cam.
I think 3 upgraded hunters called the Enhanced Hunters with the 64 extra VLS's giving up to 90-120+ (with front gun removal) missiles and 8X more anti ship missile launchers, 6 ASW Hunters and the Full number of OPV's. I also think we need a dedicated light aircraft carrier with steam catapults and arrestor wires for the F-35c carrier type (less compromise with aircraft capability and increased launch load) to provide air cover for the 2 LHD's we already have, like the CVX South Korea is planning to build and is currently looking for a design partner. I think we should build as many Hunter class ships that we can provide personnel to. We should not have limits to naval builds. China is not restricting its building programs and neither should we.
My personal wish is we have LO3 and LO4 with and F35B air wing, each of these assigned to LO1 and LO2 amphibious groups to have a complete sea, amphibious and air group. Also, the VLS counts need to be 64 or more to be an effective and capable ship. 425 liked and Salute you Sir.
Thanks for this video, moves the discussion along a bit which has been has been desperately needed. My take on what might happen:
1. Hunter Class will be dropped completely, not just reduced. There are many reasons why this should be done, but the main reason it will be dropped, is to fund the govt's proposed new surface fleet. Reducing Hunter to 3 will still require funding until 2036 when the third vessel is due to be delivered so the only way to release funds more quickly will be to cancel the project in full. There are no new funds in the budget forward estimates for defence for the next 4 years so reallocation will be the only way any new shipbuilding can get off the ground.
2. More Hobart Class to be built.
The DSR calls for much greater lethality and where possible utilising off the shelf solutions. Hobart is a modern platform already in service with the RAN and is the fastest way to obtain greater lethality. It will soon deliver ballistic missile defence capabilities and enhanced long range strike via Tomohawk, key DSR requirements. With an in-country build offer on the table from Navantia and much faster delivery schedule than Hunter, it is a no brainer. If Tier 1 can be focused on a single class it will simplify sustainment and form a good basis for continuous shipbuilding. Navantia Australia has a growing in country design office that could eventually support local continued evolution of the design.
3. Corvettes will replace Arafura.
The RAN does not appear to support uparming Arafura. We hear nothing about uparming options from Defence only leaks pointing out fundamental combatant design shortcoming's such as a lack of range, speed and survivability. Other larger Tier 2 options such as the T31/Arrowhead 140 or MEKO A200 might be more capable vessels, but they don't really fit in with the planned 2 tier fleet structure because their larger size/cost/crew would likely limit numbers. Smaller, capable but more affordable vessels obtained in greater numbers appears the aim. Larger vessels might also prove a problem for wharf infrastructure in Darwin and Cairns which have been gearing up for Arafura sized vessels not larger ones.
With time to delivery again important, Tier 2 corvettes in the 2000-3000t range would advantage NVL Group because they already have a workforce building Arafura in WA. Either their C90 or A100 designs could be delivered earlier than alternatives with no in-country presence and again could also form the basis of continuous shipbuilding.
So my guess is:
Tier 1: 9 x DDG (The 3 existing Hobart's + 6 additional built at Osborne)
Tier 2: 12-15 x NVL Corvettes (either Luerssen C90 or TKMS MEKO A100 built at Henderson)
This option could deliver 3 additional DDG and approx 8 Corvettes by 2032.
Thanks for the detailed post. The only reason I see at least 3 Hunters being built is that long lead items may have already been ordered. Agree more Hobarts could be procured, certainly helps in the air defence domain which has been highlighted. Agree on the Corvettes, the C90 or something like it seems to be in the right spot.
I'd like to see 4 task forces each with 1x Hunter, 2x Hobarts & 1x Replenishment Ship. Task forces would be East/Pacific Ocean, North/China Sea, West/Indian Ocean and South/training/refurb. That would give you 12 Tear 1 with 9 on patrol and 3 in reserve/refurb/traning cycle. The OPV being upgraded with a 35 mm Millennium canon (or similar) for offence/defensive and an 11 round SeaRam launcher for missile defense. Then if offensive operations are needed you can bolt on 4x 4 round anti Ship missile launchers (harpoon/Naval Strike Missile) or BAE's Adaptable Deck Launcher for Tomahawque Missiles. The OPV's go out with the task force and launch all their missiles in the opening salvo (under the Hobarts fire control) and then bug off home. Leaving the Tear 1's still fully loaded for a follow up if needed.
Please note that in peace time the ships within in any task force would still operate independently, you could send one off for anti-piracy and another off in the other direction for an around the world trip or whatever. As long as one ship from each task force was still somewhere around the mainland.
Totally agree. 4 AORs
If you look at Australian strategic policy institute, Rowan Moffitt has written why corvettes are not suitable for Australia. He makes a rather compelling argument.
Pity that RADM moffitt didn't refer to the Saar 6 corvettes in his piece. Already delivered to Israel and already designed to carry a MH-60 plus more VLS than both the hobart and Hunter class ships also ASW capable.
Corvettes that's been offered to Australia are the size of the Anzac frigate but better armed. You couldn't really call it a corvette more of a heavily armed light frigate. Navanti corvettes is the 3600 tonnes. That's with 16 cell VLS CEFAR radar added to it. 6 torpedo tubes 2x 25mm guns, a 35mm close in weapon system gun and 76mm main gun and ASW eqwipment and decoys and a helicopter. Not exactly that small armament or small ship Rowan was referring to
Do you have a link for that? Have been searching the site but can't find anything from him..
This briefing gives you a platform to expand on current speculations. Such as the current speculation around the arrowhead 140 fitting into that list. Or if the entire Hunter program could be axed and how the funds could be repurposed. By establishing these baseline options you could now weight into some of the more exotic options. Like the article that we need bourkes and hobarts but not hunters and so on. Pro’s and con’s could be an interesting watch.
Yes the Arrowhead would likely be very capable, more a frigate than a corvette but that doesn't mean it won't be an option. But as you suggest (I think), I think that would only happen with a total cancellation of the Hunters.
I would not bet against another AUKUS program, this time focused on the second tier combatant to replace the ANZAC class Frigates. The RN Type 31 has space for additional sensors and armament. The recent announcement that that the RN is fitting it with the MK41 VLS launcher is consistent with any likely RAN requirement. Up gunning from a 57mm to a 5inch main gun looks possible as well. There were proposals from both BAE and Babcock for that program, so both would tender for such a program for the RAN. The royal navy tier 2 requirement is not a corvette, and has more in common win concept with the ANZAC class.
Just one point, no mention of crew levels. Australia has a small population and our defence forces always struggle with recruitment levels. No point in having lots of ships if you can't crew them, that should be factored into force selection.
The easiest recruitment tool has always been newer, better equipment and facilities. Successive governments cut funding and investment in our navy for 30 years.
Hi Greg, I didn't put the figures up on the graphics, but I did mention the crew requirements, as follows: Hobarts - 200, Hunters - 180, Arafuras - 40, hypothetical corvette - 60.
@@Strategy_Analysis yes but those are not the true numbers you need to keep ships at sea. Navy needs a lot more personal per ship then just the current crew. Each ship may have multiple crews like patrol boats.
@@mistergnat638 yes there is that but historically the defence forces always struggle with recruitment when unemployment is low.
@@gregh8720 Further exacerbated by posting turbulence. Reports back as far as 1985 recognised the need for posting stability (sea going posting with the same ship location for posting ashore). The reports indicated the need to increase shore postings in the area of the Fleet Bases and forward operating bases but this becomes problematic when there is not viable work for personnel.
Good coverage and overall a sound assessment of needs, especially RAN need for ships - proper warships with good survivability, offensive and defensive capabilities. A move towards a greater number of smaller surface combatants suggest that the Australian government is starting to listen to actual RAN requirements. I hope this leads to the cancellation of the Type 26 frigates and that money used to purchase other ships - it is time to cut those losses.
A need of greater numbers of VLS is important as is the 127mm main gun on Tiers 1 and possibly tier 2 vessels. Main guns are important as their munitions are cheaper to use and manufacture and 'dumb munitions'(cannon shells) are harder to detect, harder to destroy by most CIWS systems and not subject to electronic countermeasures.
I agree that the current 6 Arafura class OPV's should be converted to replace the current MCM vessel plus an additional 2 MCM giving a total of 6 MCM for expanded capabilities given the rising importance of Darwin and Townsville/Cairns naval facilities. Moreover, the Arafura class OPV's were not designed as weapon platforms and would be expensive to up-arm to meet the growing threat of China and the Chinese fishing fleet and any potential incursions of the Indonesians. As they stand, these ships would be basically cannon fodder in any real confrontation.
Similarly, the whole Tasman class design needs to either be scrapped or totally up-armed. For that sized ship to only have a 57mm main gun is a joke and basically the wet dream of someone who cannot foresee the real need for fully fledged warships.
The reasoning behind the tiered or layered approach to the RAN's capability is both sensible and practical. In my assessment, I believe the RAN needs 3 tiers based an the level of capability of the vessels of each tier. My suggestion is as follows:
Tier 1 - ships in the 5,500 - 7,000 displacement range with higher number of offensive and defensive weapons than tier 2
(suggestion 1 - 12 ships) 3 + 3 Hobart class destroyers and 6 Mogami class FFX frigates (or the batch II variant with greater number of VLS and reduced ASubW capabilities. The Mogami's have a crew of 90 and given the lack of RAN personnel this vessel seems to tick a number of boxes. No type 26 frigates.
(suggestion 2 - 9 ships) 3 + 3 Hobarts and 3 only Type 26 frigates if the cost of cancellation i too high.
(suggestion 3 - 9 ships) 3 Hobart class destroyers and 6 Mogami class frigates. Suggestion 3 requires less overall crew numbers and would be potentially the cheapest option.
Tier 2 - 12 ships in the 1,900 to 4,000 displacement range with a lower number of offensive and defensive weapons possibly made up of a composition of light and heavy corvettes armed with 76mm or 127mm main guns and a reduced number of VLS
Suggested ships for the light corvettes would be the Israeli navies Saár 6 corvettes or something similar.
Suggested ships for the heavy corvettes the Meko A200 or the Nantia A 3000 (or a heavily up-gunned Tasman class to meet the needs of a real offensive and defensive role of a tier 2 vessel. Both have similar displacements but am leaning towards the Meko A200 given that it is an upgraded version RAN's Anzac frigates that requires lower crew numbers.
Tier 3 - 12 armed patrol ship to meet counter-insurgency needs in the 750 - 1,500 displacement range (the Armidale class patrol boats were only 270 tonnes). These ships will have lower levels of offensive and defensive capabilities than tier 2 ships. I feel they need to be armed with a 57mm Auto cannon, 4-8 Surface to surface or anti-ship missiles and 2 remote weapons stations to meet the potential threat of the Chinese fishing fleet or drug and piracy incursions.
Given the recent announcement by the Prime minister of an increase to the ADF funding this should be good news. However, the present and former governments have shown a remarkable ability to mess things up and waste money. Well that is my 2 cents worth.😇
Thanks. And appreciate the detailed response.
more to folllow.
Brilliant briefing mate
Thanks Ken. Much appreciated. I'll do one on the RAAF soon.
@@Strategy_Analysis even though I’m ex army I really think the future threats are from the air ( aircraft/ missiles) & on and under the sea. And it will be against our trade routes and our islands. So the airforce one will be interesting! Thx
I think people underestimate the cost and difficulty of restarting the Hobart Line. All of the infrastructure and people who built them are now building the Hunters. If more AWD is required, its probably easier to re-role te last three ships of the hunter as AWD's. That decision would need to be taken promptly in order to give sufficent time for the sub class to be properly worked up.
What is not clear to me is that DSR has not articulated the mission set for the Tier 2 ships. It is very difficult to theory class suitable force mix if the raison d'etre for the corvetes is not clear.
Thanks for the comment, Peter. We'll see soon enough.
I'd like to see the Arafuras capped at 6, and the lines converted over to the Luerssen C90 corvette, just because that's about the only ship we can move over to quickly and efficiently. The first six Arafuras can get lightly upgraded: box launchers for NSM or LRASM (just as shooters within a battle network so they don't need to be able to generate targets organically), those C-Dome things RAN floated a few months ago, maybe a towed array. But just so they can contribute something in a higher end fight: ultimately they're always going to be underequipped as warships.
You procure as many corvettes as we can crew, probably 8? Importantly during peacetime you treat them as much like patrol boats and as little like MFUs as possible. In a conflict, they're exclusively tasked with the fight in the littorals in and around SE Asia, with minor convoy escort etc., freeing up the major surface combatants for other duties. At the end of the production run we can convert back to Arafuras to make the minesweepers and survey vessels the RAN needs.
Drop the Hunter order down to 5 and procure as quickly as possible at least two additional Hobarts, ideally three, but got to think of crewing.
You're at 9 or 10 tier 1 vessels, 8 Tier 2 vessels and 6 tier 2.5 upgraded OPVs.
Outside of surface ships, order another 6-10 P-8s to beef up ASW and provide additional maritime strike capability and to cover the risk that the MQ-4 programme seems to be developing, bring the MQ-9Bs back to provide organic airborne ISR to the Canberra's, and procure some kind of competent VTOL drone for the upgraded Arafuras and wherever else you can squeeze them in - those STRIX drones BAE was showing off awhile back showed promise.
It's not the perfect fleet you'd design if you were starting from scratch. But it can potentially start offering significant additional fighting power quickly: the P8s are probably 4-5 years away at most, and there's no reason we couldn't have more or less all the upgunned Arafuras and the first of the C-90s commissioned by 2026 or 2027.
Thanks, Matt. Some interesting options there.
Seems you don’t understand the purpose of the Arafura……it’s only job is to deploy and recover the RAN’s new XLUUV’s. Otherwise they would have stuck with the cape class……..
@@BeerGutGuy That's just not true. The Arafuras are meant to consolidate all our minor surface vessels into one large and capable class. They have a bunch of roles mainly (unsurprisingly) offshore patrol for fisheries protection, anti smuggling etc. The Arafura is undergunned for the 21st century, but the on paper design is leaps and bounds ahead of the Cape, with an actual meaningful main gun (before it was cancelled), facilities for organic OTH ISR and a multi-mission payload capability to make it enormously more flexible. It's not just a bigger Cape.
I very, very much doubt that their boat bay will even have the requisite dimensions to handle whatever comes out of the XLAUV programme unless they're specifically designed (i.e. neutered) to fit in the RHIB's spot. Which would be the worst of all worlds: no RHIB for interdiction missions, a neutered XLAUV, and not all that stealthy of a deployment mechanism.
I'm willing to be proven wrong if you have a source, but it seems highly, highly unlikely.
Thanks for the analysis. I agree that more Hobart class destroyers are required - up to 6 in total. However, in my opinion, the Hunter class frigates are not a good fit and think it was a political decision rather than a practical one. I feel it is undergunned and an oversized waste of money. Given the RAN's crew problems I feel that a different choice of Frigates or anti submarine warships would be a more fruitful choice: My options would be to have;1. a single class of tier 1 surface combatants from Navantia -5 or 6 Air Warfare and 5-6 anti submarine. Pros; Australia's existing relationship with Navantia plus logistics for a single class of ship. Option 2 would be to procure 5-6 Mogami class anti submarine frigates from Japan, ie greater automation and much less crew required or the Navantia F110 frigate. Both are smaller vessels than the UK's Type 26, are more cost effective and fit the requirements for Tier1 offensive capabilities. Given the world's trend towards smaller ships in greater numbers, these frigates may be a better fit. For tier 2 optionthe current OPV's are grossly inadequate if they were to confront any Chinese fishing fleet with its own escort security. The current OPV's are laughable - it would be more effective to throw a handful of gravel at their crew! At a minimum the OPV's need to be equipped with a 57mm rapid fire gun and 4 harpoon anti-ship missiles to be effective tier 2 vessels able to support the Teir1 vessels. This would require a possible redesign or re-strengthening of the OPV's. A mix of up to 16 OPV's and Corvettes is a sound idea. The Corvettes, in my opinion, should be armed with a 76mm auto cannon, 8-16 VLS (similar to the Anzac class of frigates) 4 Harpoon anti-ship missile and torpedo tubes to be an effective support to the Tier1 vessels.
.
Thanks for the detailed reply. Who knows what the review into surface combatants will recommend. However, I would be surprised if they didn't procure at least some Hunters given sunk costs.
@@Strategy_Analysis Thanks for the reply! I do not know how much money has already gone into the development of the Hunter class frigates, but agree if money has already gone into the frigate then I think only 3 - 4 Hunter class should be procured. The balance for Tier1 being more Hobart class destroyers. Cheers
Hiya mate, great to see this topic covered OUTSIDE the political shenanigans the AUKUS deal caused! My old man actually worked a lot on the Hobart class at the shipyard in Osborne (now working on Arafuras). Got to have a good poke around aboard HMAS Sydney last month, and chat to her crew.
Would you consider creating a briefing regarding Australia's new NASAMS unit structure? Or do you already have one on the channel?
I am thinking about a broader land-based air defence briefing, that would of course include NASAMS.
The Men and Women that Man a Ship are Referred to as the Ships Company, and Not Crew.
The results of the Navy review has dropped today 20 Feb and it is a major expansion of the RAN, inc.
3 Hobart class DDG(extant)
6 Hunter ASW Frigates
11 GP Frigates in the 4-6000t range,
6 optionally maned large surface combatants, with 32 VLS cells, developed in conjunction with the USN.
6 Arafura OPV
19 Patrol Boats
Spain, Germany, South Korea and Japan have been short listed to provide 3 GP Frigates built in their home shipyards and 8 built in Australia at Henderson.
Hobarts to be replaced after Hunters are completed.
Hunters delivered 2034-43
GP Frigates, 4 by 2034
Thanks Harldin. Yes I've been waiting for this. Will do a so what briefing soon.
Reducing the Hunters down to only 3 is stupid. We need to stop this stupidity and build more then 9. If we reduce the Hunters down to 3 it will just mean we are repeating the same error we did with the Hobarts in not building the extra 2-3 of those.
With the money Australia’s spending on AUKUS they could buy a fleet of super carriers
The AUKUS money is over 30 years including building up an intire now industry for Australia. It is not just the boats we are getting, it is also the experience and expertise in using nuclear power.
@@Caine1277 still over price
The stupidity will never stop !!!!
@@avus-kw2f213no, it's not.
A large vessel need not be more expensive than a small vessel and may not require a larger crew. For example a 180,000 tonne class large container ship operates with a crew of around 25.
A larger hull offers better seakeeping ability, better survivability, greater crew comfort and a greater ability to be upgraded if required.
Ship building costs are minimised by first establishing and proving a relatively simple base design and then constructing a large number of this design with minimal changes in that base design to an efficient drumbeat rate of production - precisely what China is currently doing very successfully for naval ships and commercial ships for which China is the world's largest builder.
Both the Hobart and Hunter class are first rate designs but construction costs will increase drastically if the number of units ordered will be reduced or if build schedule dates are drastically altered - this is the opposite of the assumed aim of reducing costs. The expensive ship design and development costs, software programming costs and the production facilities establishment costs including the training of the needed workforce are mostly fixed costs and these costs will need to be spread over a smaller number of vessels making each vessel more expensive. Naval ship construction in Australia is nearly ALWAYS far too stop-start due to an inadequate naval procurement process. The number of the Hunter class vessels to be now ordered should preferably be kept at the originally planned figure of 9.
As the RAN has clearly maxed out the credit card on SSN's the pressure is now apparently to trim everything else which was all predicted long ago but no one wanted to listen. Australia could have instead acquired two fairly new used Virginia class SSN's from the US and simultaneously begun the urgent process to build 12 large SSK submarines in Adelaide.
A larger number of hulls does result in a more diffuse navy that is spread out more and is more difficult for opposing military forces to counter. Quantity has a quality of its own.
The best path now in my view for the RAN is probably something like this:
* 2 slightly used Virginia class SSN's
* 12 large long range SSK's to be built in Adelaide;
* when the RAN's Virginia class SSN's get closer to retirement age - order 2 British Astute - Replacement class SSN's to be built in the UK
* 6 Hobart class AWD's (construct 3 more)
* 9 Hunter class heavy frigates
* retain all the Arafura class
* build a significant number (possibly 12 or more) large simple frigates with a weapons and sensor fit that offers good value for money.
* retire the Anzac class as they reach the end of their practical operational lives - but mothball them in case everything goes pear shaped.
The RAN's earlier Oliver Hazard Perry class FFG's followed a similar low cost construction philosophy and so did the Meko class which was the base of the Anzac class frigates. Crewing requirements can be significantly less for a basic and large frigate than for the Hobart or Hunter class. Such a large simple frigate could ideally still have space for two Seahawk sized helicopters but deploy one to save on operational and acquisition costs.
The South Koreans and some of the European yards should be able to offer a good value for money basic design that uses a large simple hull for a specified build cost of half the current expected cost for one Hunter class frigate and to be built in modules throughout Australia. A prototype build contract would be preferable to prove the design in service before ordering subsequent vessels.
Give these ship builders a challenge and they can meet it.
This is not that difficult.
As an adjunct, maybe several Swedish Gotland type submarines along with drone type submarines?????
Great reporting.
Thanks.
On the subject of Submarines, surely we need more boats now instead of waiting another few years for the US Congress to decide on whether they will sell us the Virginia class submarine, we could choose from the German, Sweden or Japanese diesel-electric boats. even if we get 3 or 5 Virginia class boats I don't think this will be nearly enough so having some conventional boats lurking in the north of Australian waters and operating out of Darwin will be a comforting thought.
Option 2 but 6 Hobart AWDs (should have kept building these) with Naval Strike missiles, 6 Upgunned with More VLS in place of mission module Hunter Class ASW frigates, 6 Corvettes and reduction to 6 upgunned Arafura OPVs with larger multi purpose deck gun additional 30mm cannons, quad packed naval strike missiles, decoys etc. get at least 3 B21 Raiders with antiship missiles.
I'd love to see us invest heavily in our Submarine force, both in nuclear boats and SSK's, perhaps 10 hulls of each class and at least 5 crews (RAN) and a similar number of RANR crews
I accept this idea is very unlikely to come to pass BUT I think the perfect fleet structure for the RAN would be 8 Hobart class, 12-15 Arafura, 8 AUKUS style Subs and a further 6-8 conventionally powered diesel electric subs.
The destroyers would be upgraded with the LRASM or NSM, the 12-15 Arafura class vessels with removable box launchers for Land attack missiles and perhaps a more multi-purpose main gun such as the German millennium style 35mm.
The box launchers to be only fitted during war time and used basically as "dial a missile" service for the Hobart class targeting sensors to direct. When not at war the Arafura's simply revert to traditional patrol role.
The ANKUS class ships being used for longer range anti-ship or anti submarine missions along with higher risk land attack missions not suited to the Hobarts.
And finally the SSK's remaining behind to fulfil the role of dedicated ASW platform probably more effectively and with much lower crew requirements than the Hunter class. I would envisage either the Newer Japanese or German subs being perfect for this role. Especially so the Japanese Taigei models using their Lithium ion tech to help deal with Australia's longer range patrol needs. Also you can get about 2.5 of these diesel electric submarines for the price of one Hunter class.
While this would not fill the "traditional" layout for a navy in terms of ship composition I think it would be far more accurately geared towards the type of war the RAN may have to fight one day.
There seems to be some confusion about the VLS capability of the hunter class. Not all sources are consistent with number, size, or inclusion of various systems.
The ship appears to have the length and beam to carry more weapons than some open sources state - if you compare to similar size ships (and their VLS configuration).
Yes, it can be more weapons, I believe some of these maybe be part of the modular aspect of it. Allow it to fit when needed and a lot of details have not been released like the Hunter has Nulka decoy only(it seems) while the others have 3 or 4 different systems.
The problem with some open sources they call the Hunter Type 26 sub class, the Type 26 has 3x 24 cell VLS and is about 7,000t while the Hunter has 32 VLS and about 10,000t, yes, they a based off the same original design but they a no longer the same ship. Yesterday I learnt the Chinese has a very similar ship called the type 54B frigate, which is reported to be about 6,000t and has 32 VLS, It could be a type 26 sub class too.
Although the Hobart class Destroyers are virtually brand new I think because it is essentially a twenty year old design unless they build three enlarged variants with more VLS cells with 16 more added. Or they wait til the USN starts building its new DDGX vessels and we build three or four in Australia. The Australian financial review has said BAE systems knows already that the Hunters will be cut to six and are resigned to that fact. AFR also stated that Arrowhead has offered its Type 31 frigate as replacement instead of corvettes with the possibility of a 3-6-6 combination of three Hobart six Hunter and six Type 31 frigates. If they do go for corvettes then I think it will be six Hobart and six Hunters with nine and twelve corvettes but with several potential designs available it might be a two or more year evaluation process because you’d have designs not only Germany and Spain but other nations might submit designs like Britain South Korea France and Italy. Do we know what’s going on with the sealift and replenishment joint ship that was reportedly between the UK , Netherlands and a Australian design based on the Spanish Armada LSD ships? This position that the navy finds itself in can be blamed to two reckless decisions. 1, the hunters should have not been designed with the Ceafar 2 radar system along with aegis combat system as this is what caused the size and cost blowouts because this ship was never originally designed to carry this equipment. 2, the 2007 decision to pick the Spanish F-100 class ship over the US designed mini Burke destroyer was a grand mistake. The US design had 64 VLS cells while the Spanish F-100 has 48 and a minimum of four ships was the bare minimum not three. My prediction is that six hunters will join the three Hobart’s and three or four DDGX destroyers will be built to replace the Hobart destroyers in the mid 2040’s with a force of 12 3000-4000 large corvettes built with significant capabilities.
Thanks Lindsay, very informative. I will do a separate briefing on Australia's amphibious lift capability soon. Many very capable platforms out there, but you don't want to be operating more different platforms that you need.
Regarding the DDGX, the Americans tend to make their ships very crew intensive. It's one of the major reasons why the Americans don't dominate the export market in shipbuilding the way they do for things like fighter jets: very few other countries, including Australia, can put that many people on a single asset, regardless of how powerful.
In Australian service, that much value placed into one hull would mean a DDGX would likely need to be treated something like a cruiser, which just isn't something we need or can support right now IMO. And honestly, given how the American fleet is structured principally around generating CSGs and ARGs rather than SAGs, I'm not sure it would fulfill the cruiser role particularly well anyway.
I've been thinking about an upgraded block 2 Hobart build recently, and I defiantly think it could be done. If we bought 3 more Hobarts but with Spy 6 (v-4) radars, Aegis baseline 10, 16 extra VLS cells, Naval Strike Missiles and all other upgrades planned for the Hobart midlife upgrade already installed, we could have an extremely capable and survival AWD fleet. With the MK-41 cells specifically, I've looked at deck schematics and it's clear that there is simply no more room below deck for more cells. But If we move the lighter NSM launchers on top of the hangar and install modified BAE adaptable deck launchers in their place, we could add 16 cells and therefore bring the total to 64. The current BAE deck launcher can come either in strike or tactical lengths, 4 abreast. I believe if another 4 could be placed on top to make an 8-cell deck launcher. The good thing about all of these modifications is that the same could fairly easily be done to legacy Hobarts so we eventually end up with 6 identical 64 cell, ballistic missile defense capable AWDs.
@@john-paulfarrell2562 I'm eagerly awaiting the review into the surface combatant force. Then we will know more.
Does the possibility exist to alter the design of the Hunter class to give it a broader, of otherwise increased weapons loadout. Similar to how the Type-26 or Canadian Surface Combatant have different/Increased weapons loads?
While more expensive than Corvettes it would seem that getting the most capability out of each hull we do build isn't a bad idea.
On the Corvette idea, I'm not sure how many options are out there that are suitable. Maybe the Upcoming Euro-Patrol-Corvette? It has Navantia as a major company and we've had a good working relationship with them so far.
Indeed options to look at expanding the Hunter's capabilities should be looked at. Yes, many corvette options out there, many of which I think would provide significant capabilities.
Yes they can modify the design by removing the multi-mission bay for an additional 64 cell VLS. BAE systems have put this forward as the up-armed Hunter class for batch 2. Just wish the decisons makers would get things right the first time as the amount of money that has been watsed is beyond belief. The Hunters will be good but the were designed primarily as sub hunters with some air defese capabilities. If they try to cancel or reduce, I gaurantee only even more money will be lost....
If history teaches us anything, drastically reducing the size and scope of needed projects, always, always ends up costing far more than if we had done it at a viable size in the first place. If we reduce the Hunter class order below six I fully expect a constant drizzle of news articles for the next ten years about the cost blow outs in the program that were caused by its reduction in size. Then the inevitable cost of the hastily concocted program for the next generation of ships 😞. I'm not against a High/Low mix but we still need sufficient numbers of high with a suitably rated low, which is very clearly not going to be the current OPV. I may well be wrong with my predictions so lets add another to the fire, I'm *guessing* that the government either announces a modified OPV or just sells them off to someone else. Though I do hear Lurssen already has larger version of the OPV.
The example Corvette I show in the briefing is the Luerssen offering. Not saying that is the best option, but one of them.
Just get 12 DDGs the government will stuff it up
They will build more than 3 SSN-AUKUS subs. If we're buying some second hand subs then by the time the third SSN-AUKUS sub is commissioned the first of the second hand subs will need to be retired. To maintain an 8 sub fleet we'll need to build another one. So even if we buy 5 Virginias off the US we'll still need to build more than 3 SSN-AUKUS to maintain an 8 sub fleet.
I think your lost in the program of what is happening. 3 subs will be offered to Australia that will still have a life span of 20 years in early 2030s. 2 of the latter ones offered in late 2030s will be brand new. 30 year life span that be a total of 5 subs purchased of the Virginia class from USA.
AUKUS submarines well suposed to be all 8 starting to be built in Australia starting from 2040s.
But I don’t see them getting built in Australia. But in the UK. And it isn't the ASTUTE class we getting it be an entirely different design that will have a VLS and less crew to oporate than the Virginia class. I also believe Australia won't get 8 we will end up with 6
Hopefully they intend to develop an aircraft carrier for the ghost bat drone
It's all just a "maybe"... There'll be 2-4 federal elections before most, if any, of this actually happens, if half of those result in a change of government, or even just a different mix of independents/LNP/ALP/Green seats etc, it'll all turn to sticky brown stuff and change.
Room for at least 6 more "Defence Strategic Reviews" to take place, projects to go way over budget, way over time (they always do), get canned, get changed.
And don't forget, Australian citizens feel very comfortably safe, they want a defence force, but very very few want to pay for one, even less want to serve in one.
We've always struggled to fill the places needed, struggled to find the funds to run and fill the gear with ammo for it's weapons.
I did 21 years in the Army, I can still remember running around on exercises, shout "Bang" because there weren't enough blanks, or blank firing attachments... Guy with the M60 got hoarse very quickly (I'd just shout "bang, repeatedly" or "bang, lots" until I got shouted at myself)
I remember Leopard tanks had track mileage severely reduced and monitored to save on running costs. Some smart tankies took to pointing the turret backwards and driving in reverse to get a bit more miles in.
Rapier and RBS70 AD gunners could go their entire career and be lucky to have fired one live missile.
All the missiles needed for these new vessels? Riiiight.
You can forget conscription, the Australian public has no stomach for that.
Adding more equipment without finding a way to man all the gear? Well unless you make it all remote control or drones, ain't going to happen.
Stretch the Hunters slightly to include more VLS. Keep the nine originally planned nine Hunters.
Back again. I think your analysis is basically sound. However I think the whole Type 26 Frigates need to be dumped (regardless of monies already outlaid) and the money allocated to other more affordable vessels. My thinking is for 6 AAW Hobart class destroyers (ie 2 operational ships given the 3 ship rule) and 6 ASW batch2 Mogami class frigates - smaller crew numbers given the RAN's staffing issues. 6-9 ASW multi role corvettes - The Navantia A3000 is a good fit while the Tasman class needs to be upgunned to a 76mm rapid fire gun in order for independent operation against any perceived threat from Chinese fishing fleets and the Indonesians. Personally, I think the current OPV's are a pig in water, better suited to Customs patrols and/or converted to mine countermeasure roles.- the Armidale class of patrol boats where much smaller and lighter, but did the same or similar job. My reasoning is that they are under-gunned and built around the political mindset of appeasement rather than as practical offensive and defensive warships. A better OPV needs a at least 57mm rapid fire gun, 1xCIWS and remote point defence plus a high degree of automation. The Russian Bayun class ship, for example, has a lighter displacement than the current OPV's and has greater offensive capabilities (different mindset in the original design.. Overall, I feel that most of the RAN fleet are vulnerable to anti-ship missile attack and lack sufficient CIWS protection. The three Hobart class destroyers should have 2 CIWS (fore and aft) and the Adelaide, Canberra, Choules and the two supply vessels need a CIWS upgrade to 2-3 units per vessel. With all the dithering that has occurred I will be interested to see what the Australian government and RAN finally decide. Personally, I think designing the RAN strategy around a nuclear submarine force is very flawed. The RAN should fill its submarine force ( in the interim) with 6-9 conventional submarines - Gotland, Japanese or German made off the shelf designs, This would give the RAN and the government breathing space to seriously consider the nuclear option and all its ramifications. Cheers!
So this is going to happen next year is it?
After reading so many drop Hunters for Hobarts comments i have to ask why? When so many seem to overlook.
1) Hobarts are not crusiers. Get cruisers if you want to attack land targets.
2) Air warfare Destroyers make poor ocean patrol vessels.
3) Hobarts have limited ASW.
4) Still need ASW for escorts and patrols as enemy subs will be a main issue.
Primary target areas
Many naval facilities are located in areas with deep water nearby. Malacca Straits, coral sea and Indonesia are high trade traffic ways.
Japan and Korea are trade partners we need to protect shipping to them too.
Even with Butterworth using P8 that is still lots of water to cover
I think cutting ASW frigates will leave big gaps in defence. We should be looking at more Hunters.
Just build more Anzac class with all the VLS
Australia’s not smart they lost the Williamstown shipyard & They over spend in every thing & AUKUS
Australia could learn a thing or 2 from North Korea they turned a old submarine in to a nuclear missile attack submarine & a failed helicopter Corvette into a nuclear attack Corvette just by modifying them
For example Australia is retiring the Armidale-class patrol boat how hard would it be to put a artillery gun on the front and turn it into a landing support vessel
@@avus-kw2f213
Why restart an outdated design, that would need massive redesign.
Using repurpose built ships has its own issue that a new should would solve.
Using your example
1) it has an aluminium hull
2) gun size and weight are very important for balance and speed.
3) ammo storage. Don't want Russian flying tanks at sea.
4) fire control and electronics needs to be installed.
5) extra crew maybe needed.
Bigger ships have less issue with additional weapons later as infrastructure design may already exist.
@@thomasb5600 1) artillery without needing to divert a larger ship
Also when I say build more Anzac class I mean a modern variant for example Aircraft designs like the Eurofighter Typhoon can stay productions to decades and it is one of the most modern nonself aircraft
Cancel Type26 reasons being.
Type26 crew size 180
Type31 crew size can be between 80-100
9 Type26 = 16-20 Type31
9 Type26 with 32 VLS, 2x 4 canisters for NSM, 1x 5inch gun, 2x 30 mm guns and 2 CIWS (Phalanx).
16-20 Type31 with 32 VLS, 1x 57mm main gun or 76mm Leonardo super rapido or could possibly fit our 5inch main gun on-board, 2x 4 canisters for NSM, 1-2 CIWS (Phalanx).
Arafura class opv
Build 2-4 opv for mine hunting and cancel the rest and buy the arrowhead 120 or the Sa'ar6 class either one you'd still get around 6-8 ships just don't know if we could fit mk41 VLS on the Sa'ar6 but both ships properly armed and do have a decent travel range
Are the 3 newer of the ANZAC class capable of being fitted out with 2 x 48 cell VLS and loose the chopper? I know they are old and slow.
No. But they are capable of getting a second vls. You don’t want to lose the chopper either.
@@Warspite03 I mean as a missile platform. Chopper delete.
They have room for 8 more mk41 vls cells but the ship is already very heavy due to its radar upgrade, may not be able to take the weight.
I would predict another scenario, namely 3 x Anzacs, 6 x Hunters, 6 X Corvettes and the original number (or one or two fewer) OPVs. I base this on the premise that there is a need to have a reasonable number of Tier 1 vessels available and at sea at one time and a baseline of 9 will give at least 2 to 3 on station. I think it's unlikely that the Anzac construction line will re-open as that will mean that the Adelaide shipyard will be building 2 different large-hulled classes concurrently. There would be space, skills and logistic difficulties associated with this. Due to the expectation of jobs in SA, I can't see the Federal Government making a decision to reduce the number of Hunter Class hulls from 9 to 3.
There are still be an operational need for the OPVs that corvettes either can't provide or wouldn't be a cost-effective solution. The 6 corvettes that could be funded by the reduction of 3 Hunter Frigates is still a reasonable flotilla, and will povide an additional 3 hulls in the water compared to what's currently planned for the 12 Hobart/Hunter vessels. Due to their smaller size and lower level of sophistication, the corvettes could be built somewhere else such as in WA or Victoria.
That plan would make the RAN even weaker than it is. Having Corvettes at the cost of Hunters wouldnt be a "reasonable flotilla" in any sense.
@@mistergnat638 I agree that a reduction in the number of Hunters would be a weakening in the Tier 1 assets and overall fleet. The use of the term "reasonable flotilla" applies only to the corvettes, in that if the decision is to have a larger number of smaller vessels, 6 corvettes would provide adequate numbers and capability for that portion of the fleet.
Reading the tea leaves, the government wants more surface vessel hulls in the water, needs to be mindful of minimising crew sizes per vessel and doesn't want the overall procurement cost of the surface fleet to increase. It will be interesting to see if this eventuates when the review is published. So the point I'm making is, if that's the case, 6 Hunters is still a good capability and the 3 that are unbuilt (together with 2 or 3 OPVs) can be used to fund the 6 corvettes.
Anyone interested in defence probably wants a bigger, more powerful fleet filled with highly capable vessels, but if there's only a finite budget (particularly when the funding for the subs is included) and government policy has been determined, you have to cut your cloth accordingly.
I doubt the extended version of the Arafura class OPV’s will be acquired because of the alleged stability issues that have been reported.
Thanks for that info.
Another thoughtful analysis. You are doing great work.
Now to an Option 4: Tier 1 from Option 3 (6 x DDgs and 6 x FFGs) and for Tier 2, 12 (or 15) Corvettes. Now for the real cost saver and capability improver, scrap the AUKUS SSN program, replace the Collins Class submarines with 12+ German Type 214 submarines (these are currently being operated by Indonesia, Korea and Singapore). Building these conventional submarines in Adelaide could open up a significant market in providing maintenance services to other regional navies. This has the added benefit of our navy not being seen as a direct threat to China. The Navy would clearly be for the defence of Australia not first strike into China.
Thank you. Much appreciated. Was hoping viewers would create other options.
There was a reason the SSN's were chosen, conventional boats lack the range, speed, payload and time on station Australia needs in the current and future environment.
We need lost of subs to patrol the archielago north of us to protect the southern asia area. The Japanese, Koreans and Yanks can look after the area north of the Philipines.
The RAN for years has been structurally three destroyers and six frigates, plus patrol boats. Really, when the Hunter class enter service the ANZAC ships should go into an active reserve, one in each state for naval reserves.
Has the RAN, considered, getting back into the carrier business?
No. The closest that might have been was F-35Bs on the LHDs, but that won't happen.
Instead of the Hobart design we have, we should have gone to the South Koreans and asked what kind of deal they could make us on 4 or 5 Sejong the Greats.
They are certainly very powerful ships.
They certainly are very powerful ships.
I have a question.... what trade exactly are we trying to protect?
I ask because currently Australia China trade makes up about a third of our trade.... can we even afford such a war?
We can. They can’t.
I would go with option one with a 2030 completion.
Why is the RAN stuck in a 12 tier one mode. Small minded thinking is what has been wrong with country naval thinking for years.
$$$$$$ is why!
@@robandcheryls, well maybe the 4 million that albo spent on flights this year and the 3.6 that marles spent could have gone to military procurement of new military equipment? Not to mention the waste on the NDIS of paying for prostitution services!
How about 6 Hobart's 6 Hunter with 48 cells 3 type 83 or Bourke 10 large corvettes???,Corvettes having 24 vls cells & 8 anti ship with hull mounted sonar & cable,8 x tomahawk cells 8xsm6,8x quad packed,phalanx and seahawk with hellfires torpedoes
There isn't enough crew for this number of ships, but the Hobart and Hunters should be buddy built. The Hunters should have more VLS than current, but that will further delay them. Don't know what the RAN has put in them to make them so heavy and tight for space
@user-cp5ei6eh2w Why not swap the radar,sounds like it's way to top heavy causes it to be slow.Why can't they make it have at least 48 vls .10,000 tonnes is a cruiser,should have 90 plus vls
Option 3 would be the most sensible
Certainly a possibility.
Aircraft Carriers replaced battleships in WW2 as aircraft are a more efficient means of transporting HE.
The USN retains Carrier Battle Groups as the most efficient means of defending Surface Vessels from Antiship missiles is with Aircraft.
(AEW & Fighters locating/destroying the enemy missile launch platforms)
Any Surface Action Group or Escorts for Merchant Convoys that lacks aircover & attempts to defend itself by shooting down incoming missiles is limited by their onboard munitions loadout.
The MK41 VLS is not reloaded at see - even if there were additional munitions available.
So if the intention is to escort shipping to Japan or the US, it would probably be most economical to install MK41 VLS onto merchant ships themselves & combine that with Land based/Aerial refuelled AEW & Fighters.
That would leave Submarines for ASW & ASuW.
Destroyers & Frigates would probably be seconded to USN CBG's.
Corvettes can protect ports & Coastal Shipping.
Unfortunately neither Australia, USA or Japan can out build/spend the PRC - the PLAN is already larger than the USN.
so the hunter class has only 12 missiles less then a destroyer thats low the destroyer should carry double that in missiles
This needs to be looked at through the lens of limited resource management. The resource that is the limiting scaling up is manpower. So with the current Hobart class, proposed Hunter and Arafura class compliments you have 2620 crew. Build one more AWD now, build 4 anitsub vessels (either Hunters or mod AWD), that is your tier 1. The early Arafuras should go to the ABF and the a last 8-10 should built with the helideck to cope with a SH60, a CIWS gun and a NASAM, this is tier 3. The remaining crew should go to 10-12 "Corvettes", the Tier 2.
This is where I get controversial, the corvettes will be catamaran/trimaran version of a vessel already designed. They will have 16-24 VLS, stong CIWS and a helideck, no big gun. These will be operating predominantly in the archipelago north of Australia so there is a greater need for protection against swarming event. Why cat/trimaran, because we have two excellent builders of these vessels (shared build) and they can be built in parallel with the Arafura, AWD/Hunters.
Thanks for the detailed comment. Military personnel cost a lot of money over their careers, so crewing these vessels will be a major consideration in the review. We should get a good idea of the future surface combat force soon.
Good points.
The other things is do we want 2 independent amphibious squadrons or 1 large amphibious fleet. This impacts the numbers for Tier 1.
While OPV upgrades seem like I good idea. The Australian version lacks the Helipad instead it is to be used by a light UAV. The impression this gives me is that the OPV is not going to every be upgraded and will only be used against Drug runners, fishermen, refugees, survey or last ditch defense.
There is talk of more mission module vessels, this seems to fit what the Hunter will be. This would make less ASW at times, Mine deployment, Special Operations deployment, AAW support or might be possible to carry extra weapons with the right containers. The numbers might seem large with fleet support and solo patrol operation gets used up quick. If 2 are used for each Amphibious squadron that is half assigned.
The Hobart is not much better with VLS numbers than the Hunter, Hobart has little option outside it designated roles compared to the more flexible Hunter. This makes it a good LHD/ amphibious escort but is it 1 or 2 squadrons there numbers seem a little short by 1 for a dual squadron and more if used to help allies fleets.
Do we need corvettes? Yes, but what types? Modular, helipad and low crew I think I what is needed. Escort seems reasonable to support any small Amphibious action with a mix of AAW and ASW or larger fleets, Mine Hunter seems reasonable but current trend is this will be Drone Module so not a fixed role. Island patrol off the East Coast around to the Top end leaving the west and south to the much bigger Hunters. Numbers need to be about 4 to 8.
For me a 2 Amphibious squadrons with combat patrols is what the fleet should look like so 2 LHD, 2 JSS, tier 1 as 5 Hobart, 9 Hunter, 6 corvettes tier 2 as 14 OPV + MHC, evolved Patrol (replace them with a different class OPV).
Extra Hobarts or similar design would be the biggest cost issue as modular corvettes would mean less need to by fitted for specific roles.
The area two areas of operation, open ocean and island patrol, the tier 1 is best for open ocean, supported by corvettes if needed. The smaller corvette are needed for the island patrol supported by proper OPV. See my post for more details.
@@user-cp5ei6eh2w yes, there are 2 AoO, as you said too bigger tier 1 ships need to patrol ocean side(most likely ASW) however you need escort for the amphibious/carrier fleets these can not be just Anti-Air destroyers. You need active patrol and maintenance frigates having to small a number will impact wartime defences. It why I don't like when people say reduce the ASW Frigates and increase AAW Destroyers.
As for corvette what hull does not matter as much as being modular for greater flexibility in roles.
Option 3 but add 2 more Canberra class & convert them to drone / helicopter carriers. Let the tier 1 do their job and let the LHD & drones coordinate with the OPVs during peace time and participate in disaster relief for our pacific neighbors.
You can buy 7 x B2 stealth bombers for the same cost as a Hunter.
7 B2’s can carry 168 LRASM missiles, a Hunter can carry 8? Maybe 16
A B2 can launch the LRASM from beyond Chinese radar and missile range, a Hunter has to approach to within return fire distance.
A B2 can return to base and reload multiple times a day, a Hunter would take multiple days to return and reload.
If the intention is to fight surface combatants, the answer seems clearly on the side of the RAAF, irrespective of the platform.
If the intent is to fight submarines, then the current Hunter design is optimal for the mission.
If the intent is air defence, then we’ve already made that decision…..Hobart. If Hobart isn’t enough then what is, an aircraft carrier? Maybe a ghost bat drone carrier?
That makes more sense. Less loves at risk in easy to find warships.
Don’t they type frigates on order?
The RAN will be getting new frigates, but the type hasn't been decided yet. I'll be doing a briefing on that later.
I've thought about Canada's Navy. It's really sad. 2nd Largest Nation on Earth with the Worlds largest Coastline and we haven't even BEGUN to fulfill or have the capability to fulfill our needs. We're getting 15 type 26 Frigates to replace our Halifax & Iroquois class. Which is only really good for foreign operations. In other words, Canada needs a dedicated Domestic Navy. One that is capable of covering our coast lines and support our Coast Guard Ice Breaking operations. It's all about developing our North. We have the potential to answer the Chinese Silk Road with something that would not only make the West competative again but restore our Economic Advantage over our Adversaries. I've even come up with my own "napkin" version plan of how I would accomplish everything. Playing Google Maps is Fun, especially with Canada's sparse geography.
Canada will join AUKUS.
You have no idea how your Navy works do you ?
Yes right now it's small and outdated but I've worked with them in the Caribbean, the North Atlantic and Nova Scotia and I can tell you that nobody but nobody takes the CANADIAN NAVY lightly!!
Canada is suffering from the same lack of enlistment as the US and for the same reasons ,
The conditions and pay suck !! Probable enlistees are turned of by political hackery that disparages them while send them to maybe die .
Not a recipe for successful enrolments if you ask me .
For an Island Continent, we have very few vessels.
The new Italian/French ship, which is smaller than an Arely Burke Destroyer has the Yanks putting their hands in there pockets...
Great Briefing, Many Thanks, I would be surprised if they built another Hobart or two because the engines were reportedly unique and not available anymore. I also wonder where we are going to get the crews, given the poor recruitment and retention rates the RAN is experiencing. As for cost, CASG will ensure we waste billions again by messing with designs like they did with the Hobart, Collins, SEA1000 and LHD. , I do wish we could buy off the shelf for real rather than pretend.
Thanks. Personnel challenges are likely to remain for some time. As for off the shelf acquisitions, that is the plan for the new frigates.
One Chinese BG is more capable than the entire Australian surface fleet, example, a couple of 055s could forestall their entire fleet.
Which why SSNs are the answer
Ahahaha you wish ch. ,ink
You yellows have no backbone for a fight.
Why not 12 hobart class cheaper to make and run as all ships the same, 12 corvettes + survey and mine hunter based on the same build, 8 diesel electric subs with 4 N subs and 4 multi role vessels also adaptable to new technology UAV's etc.
You are not wrong, a small navy like the RAN should only have one class of large combatant. We need to spend our money on deployable assets not duplicated design efforts and support structures.
Having multiple tiers of large combatants is silly expensive and should be left to the big boys.
Regrettably that ship has sailed. What is likely is exactly what the AFR has reported, replacing the final three Hunters with a class of six based on the type 31.
The problem is any threat involving China will happen in the next ten years or not at all. The reality we will be facing it with what we have, because nether the Hunter's or Type 31's will be in service any time soon.
@@marktucker8896 Would it be much cheaper having fewer platform types for building and thereby easier for the supply chain, maintaining spare parts, personal training and having vessels working in unison together, with commonality? If we scraped the Hunter saving money and had for example 12 Hobarts,12 Corvettes + same build mine and survey, sub mix 8 diesel electric (Japanese?) protecting our shores and nearby plus 4-6 N for projection, 2 more supply ships bringing it up to 4, 4 multi role command ships like Singapore or Malaysia with versatility and growth potential (UAV's etc) and perhaps 4 small Austal type multi role vessels (cut down versions of the former) for fast reaction and supply. Then convert the 2 Canberra's to accommodate aircraft. Would such a complement allow for far more flexibility in configurations from Battle group, humanitarian relief group to patrol units. More ships with less upfront and ongoing costs due to streamlining our asset classes, scraping the Hunter and not wasting money on bespoke costly and ultimately poor financial and operable decisions French subs, Sea sprites, Kanimbla Manoora etc?
Because Hobart class ships are designed to escort high value ships like our LHDs, hence the reason why they are heavily armed but have a short range. Hunter class ships are primarily designed to patrol and hunt, hence the lighter weapons load yet longer range.
@@john-paulfarrell2562 Not correct, the Hobart was designed as a mid tier general purpose destroyer. It was designed to both be an effective escort and to have the ability to operate alone in a variety of missions. If it were just an escort, it would not have a five-inch gun for engaging shore targets for example. It was smaller than a burke becuase the RAN decided it could not afford to operate a fleet of Burkes, not becuase they didn't want such a fleet. The RAN is two small for any ship to be a true specialist.
A lot of people assume the Hobart is poor in an ASW roles just becuase it is often called an air warfare destroyer, but it is actually the most effective ASW platform the RAN has ever fielded. The Type 26 was designed for the Royal Navy to be an ASW specialist, but the Hunter gains an enlarged air warfare capacity, it is more of a general purpose mid tier combatant trying to deliver the same capabilities the RAN wanted from Hobart.
The Hunter is the result of the perception that the Hobart was a failure due to the issues associated with its construction. Now that the RAN has finally fielded the class, they see it as a success and wish they had more of them. They should have stayed the course instead of jumping ship, now it is too late.
My fear is that the RAN will end up no less than three different classes of ship totaling less than the planned twelve and be a more expensive but less effective force.
@@john-paulfarrell2562 Fair point on range what mix do you think would suit
Can someone explain to me why we need the Hunter? What can it do that a Hobart can’t? Why can’t we just have 9-12 Hobart?
Hey from NZ, to answer your question the Hobart class ships are fantastic platforms but their Anti-submarine capability is limited. That is why the Hunter class are desirable. Even though most new combat vessels are ostensibly "multi purpose" and able to conduct anti air, anti land and anti sea/undersea missions it is quite rare for a vessel not to focus on one aspect of war fighting more than the others. In the case of the Hobart class they are multi-purpose vessels BUT they are significantly MORE focused in the anti-air role where as the Hunter class will again be multipurpose but far more focused on ASW or Anti-submarine warfare. Since China is likely to fill the role of adversary in a conflict the RAN cannot afford to have only mid-level Anti Submarine warfare capability. This is because China is putting significant investment in their Submarine fleet.
@@dna6882 thanks so much for the answer. I get the focus on AWDs for air warfare. But they have hull mounted sonars, towed sonar and an MU-60R. Not to mention crew that specialise in ASW. Is this equipment of a lower standard than a comparably sized vessel focused on ASW not air warfare?
@@KevinMcLaren71 The Hobarts are limited to their roles. Escorts of bigger ships as such the Hobart should have ASW to help protect themselves and others while working with ASW main. The Hobarts have fire power over the Hunters for now.
To me the Hunter has more Multi-Mission options, than Hobart. The Hunter has a Flexible Multi-Mission bays allowing it to become more 1 thing then another.
Example UUV or UAV mothership, Mine Hunter, Increase AWD, 2 Helicopters, 4 Rhibs or Spec OPS landing this all depends on the shipping containers used.
A small fleet would have at least 1 or 2 AWD main, 3 to 4 ASW main. The reason WW2 showed that wolf packs can draw out 2 ASW from the protection role to hunter a single sub, this left the fleets exposed to a 2nd sub.
While aircraft and missile can be a threat most ships have individual missile protection, the level of AWD should be sufficient to co-ordinate counter Aircraft and provided AA. Having 9-12 Hobarts would restrict RAN ability to provide low scale missions.
good video, but the options that were presented were not indicative of what has already been offered to the RAN by various shipbuilders. My own research indicates the following potential options according to Lurssen, Navantia, BAE systems and Babcock.
Current plan 2020-30: x3 Hobarts, x8 Anzacs, x12 Arafura class, x6 Collins (208 Mk 41 VLS cells total)
Navantia plan 2020-30: x6 Hobart's (+ 3 built), x8 Anzacs, x6 Alfa 3000 corvettes (+6 built), x6 Collins (448 cells total) ($10 billion) (proposed plan by manufacturer)
Lurssen plan 2020-30: x3 Hobarts, x8 Anzacs, x3 C90 Corvettes (+ 3 built with 7 more on order to be completed by 2036ish), x6 Collins (256 Mk 41 VLS cells total in 2030) ($1.5 billion spent by 2030) (proposed plan by manufacturer)
Babcock plan 2020-30: x3 Hobarts, x8 Anzacs, x3 Arrowhead 140 (+3 built with 3 more on order), x6 Collins (304 Mk 41 VLS cells total) ($ 3 Billion) (Estimated number of ships and cost, only vessel class proposed not build plan)
These 4 proposals show the effect on the fleet in the short term, but let's look at the various proposals a bit further out to 2045.
Original plan 2030-45: x3 Hobarts, x9 Hunters, x12 Arafura class, x12 attack (432 Mk 41 VLS cells total)
Navantia plan 2030-45: x6 Hobart's (+ 3 built), x6 Hunters (- 3 built) , x6 Alfa 3000 corvettes (+6 built), x3 SSN Virginia (612 cells total) ($10 billion) (proposed plan by manufacturer)
Lurssen plan 2030-45: x3 Hobarts, x9 Hunters, x10 C90 Corvettes (+ 10 built), x3 SSN Virginia (628 Mk 41 VLS cells total) ($5 billion) (proposed plan by manufacturer)
Babcock plan 2030-45: x3 Hobarts, x6 Hunters (-3 built), x6 Arrowhead 140 (+6 built), x3 SSN Virginia (564 Mk 41 VLS cells total) ($ 6 Billion) (Estimated number of ships and cost, only vessel class proposed not build plan)
BAE Systems plan 2030-45: x3 Hobarts, x6 Hunters, x3 BAE Air warfare destroyer (+ 3 built), x3 SSN Virginia (672-822 Mk 41 VLS cells total) (cost unknown) (proposed plan by manufacturer)
Thanks for the comment, John. I wanted viewers to suggest their options, so thanks. I wanted to suggest some options that I thought were consistent with Government statements, and what I thought was realistic. You may well be right with one of your suggestions. We'll know soon enough.
@@Strategy_Analysis cheers mate, keep up the great work!
How long will it remain the Royal Australian Navy? As a Brit thats never been to Australia, how much support is there for a republic ?
Negative on the republic.
🤙🇦🇺
@soulsphere9242 OK cheers, I personally don't see Scotland becoming independent anytime soon
It’s a dead issue here. Only the lefty boomers are interested.
The Austrian navy is not in a vacuum
If I were to build the fleet it would be majority vessels in the 1,000 to 2,000 ton range with a large Diesel submarine fleet and some larger vessels to act as flagships
The amphibious warfare vessels will be designed to take relatively small islands for this i would develop a 8 inch gun & artillery ships
Small drone carriers would be developed for reconnaissance reasons
The primary job of the navy it would be able to beat Indonesia in a war & if in a war with China protect logistics
ADA class corvette is good.
Yes, about the right size too I think.
I think the Sa'AR 6 is more capable including an ASW ability as well as ASuW and ADW.
in a theater where it expected that by 2050 half of the worlds submarines will be operating than any reduction of ASW's would be foolish. if you want tier 2 vessels that are capable then refit the Anzac's and add the 8 extra vls's that they are capable of hosting and dump the slant tubes but seriously the whole review just sounds like another Labor slash and burn on our military capability
It’s not a slash as A powerful Navy could be created with the money if it was spent efficiently
It’s just dumb policy
Defence budget way too small to afford to build, man and rely on a handful if SSNs not matter how excellent and desirable. I dont see any oportunity cost analysis id how best to spend a finite defence pie.
I think there is some merit in having Tier 2 ships and the Border Force marine unit combined into a CoastGuard with constabulary, fisheries and SAR duties. The existing Cape Class and Advanced Cape Class patrol boats should be used for CoastGuard duties.
The RAN should have the Arafura OPV and anything larger then concentrate on blue water force projection.
fifteen years maybe with new submarines a rebuilt ex USN virginia class nuke possibly, hunter class very very doubtful given issues already identified by UK and manufacturer, later nukes likely not even designed yet lol SSNs the new designs in the 2040s lol the hunters will be past it if we get them the DDGs are how old?
Scrap plans 1, 2, and 3, the first strategy is to stop useless, uninformed politicians from making any military procurement decisions. Cancel the balance of the Arafura Patrol boats, they are almost useless, Give the military a very minimum budget of 2% of GDP and let them procure the assets needed to protect Australia not just in our northern waters, but also in the sea lanes where we rely on trade for fuel and everything else we don't manufacture. We need our navy to protect key routes, the Malacca (3600k from Australia), Sunda, and Lombok Straits. While there they would run out of missiles with only a 32 or 48-cell system and would need to sail back to Darwin for resupply (Arleigh Burke has 90 cells while the new DDG(X) will have 4x32=128 cells. Our Hunter Class frigate is actually longer in length than the Hobart class destroyer, (go figure), politicians are at it again!
Costs: Wouldn't it be best to have a few less fully armed destroyers than a couple more undergunned frigates?
The Labor government will review until its out of government, without one new ship being built!
There were no new combat ships built by the previous coalition Government, the Arafura's (Ordered by the coalition government) aren't fit for purpose, and the Hunter class frigates chosen by the coalition government against the conditions that they set down, are proving to be more trouble than they are worth: too late, too expensive, and lacking in required lethality. I'd say given that record, it is more than sensible to review things in the hope of getting it right into the future because as things stand now it's a total mess.
@@68arclight, you obviously believe the albo lies. No further point to the discussion!
I’m thinking sticking with everything as planned adding 21 opv arufura class and gifting the 21 armadales to our pacific partners the concentrate on 4 extended hunter class destroyers to replace the Hobart class perhaps with an extra 64 cells to be built after the hunter class has been completed
Don't become the RN of the 70-80's. Increase numbers not decrease them.
Do the politicians in charge of Australia's Military work for China would be my first question, Every option/ amount of assets to be given to the Air Force, and Navy, Army is too little to defend from China and too many years down the road. Australia needs twice the Air Force it has [ it needs F-35 F-15EX P-8 Sub hunters Drones and Refuelers] and far more Anti- Submarine capabilities [ FRIGETES ASW AAM ]and it needs a multi-layered Anti Ballistic Missile System and Anti-Air Craft and Anti-Missile system defending all of Australia, The Surface Navy should focus on buying Attack Submarines and Frigates from the USA or the UK. DDG costs too much Corvettes have too little firepower and OPV are worthless. The Army should be the last to upgrade and the lowest priority, A territorial or National Guard of 40,000 of light mobile infantry could be built quickly and cheaply using Veterans and older equipment and up-arming Police Forces.
Might last 2weeks against china😪
God they like to pay money to 3rd party’s to do what they should do there self . Don’t know why the Australian government don’t just get what they need in the first place 😢
Just like the extremely vulnerable US carriers, seems Australia is heading in the same direction of too many eggs concentrated in too few labour intensive platforms.
corvettes too small. Need more subs, less surface ships
Agreed.
Corvettes are not to small everything else is too big
Australia is stupid, the Hobart Class has been built and is now a proven platform. We should ditch 6 of the 9 hunter class vessels and build 6 more Hobart class which would replace the aging Anzac Class frigate and upgrade the plans of the Hunter Class by loading them up with more missiles. The thing on paper is larger than the Hobart class, could carry 96 VLS and be upgraded to a cruiser. To hell with corvettes or new boat design, first thing get more Hobart class destroyers in the water. One of them is equivalent to 3 or 4 Anzac frigates and have cooperative engagement capability. That would make us even more interoperable with the U.S navy.
Australia should have purchased conventional submarines from Japan. 20+ conventional submarine is probably better than 9 nuclear powered submarines.