Noting she has gone into drydock for a refit that would be a no. The word around the traps is that there won't be any more decommissionings of the Anzac class for a couple more years.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Sinking the container ship isn't the problem, stopping the drones after launch is!
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I want an autograph, or a visit to my hobby shop.
OK deal. If I get the end penthouse and have Mr Crowe as a lodger, I will bring him down to your hobby shop for an autograph. Let this post be a record of the pact.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Mecha Plus
Civmec Presents Arafura Capability Enhancement At Indopac 2025
Australian shipbuilder Civmec has presented a weapons capability enhancement for the Arafura-class OPV at Indo Pacific 2025 in Sydney.
www.navalnews.com
I know you are all going to say these aren’t warships but in times like these I’d much prefer these small ships to have offensive and defensive packages on them to survive at sea. Contribute to surveillance underwater and have assets spread across the pacific and economic zone while our warfighting vessels push further out. Not sure why the 6 vessels are not upgunned to plug holes in a small navy social around png lombrumsnaval base Fiji and coco islands etc got to make do with what you have. Excellent vessels by the way
I'm pretty sure volks is currently having a herbal tea before responding. In the meantime, I'm getting some popcorn ready.Civmec Presents Arafura Capability Enhancement At Indopac 2025
Australian shipbuilder Civmec has presented a weapons capability enhancement for the Arafura-class OPV at Indo Pacific 2025 in Sydney.
I know you are all going to say these aren’t warships but in times like these I’d much prefer these small ships to have offensive and defensive packages on them to survive at sea. Contribute to surveillance underwater and have assets spread across the pacific and economic zone while our warfighting vessels push further out. Not sure why the 6 vessels are not upgunned to plug holes in a small navy social around png lombrumsnaval base Fiji and coco islands etc got to make do with what you have. Excellent vessels by the way
For my perspective, upgrades to the Arafuras is a fair game topic after all six hulls are in the water and at OLOC. First we need to get them in the water.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Chamomile might help, possibly with some willow bark as well.
I have a long string of relevant and related questions to ask. What would one be looking for the OPV's to be able to survive? What sea areas does one envision the OPV's getting deployed to where offensive and defensive weapons systems would not only be relevant, but potentially useful?Civmec Presents Arafura Capability Enhancement At Indopac 2025
Australian shipbuilder Civmec has presented a weapons capability enhancement for the Arafura-class OPV at Indo Pacific 2025 in Sydney.
I know you are all going to say these aren’t warships but in times like these I’d much prefer these small ships to have offensive and defensive packages on them to survive at sea. Contribute to surveillance underwater and have assets spread across the pacific and economic zone while our warfighting vessels push further out. Not sure why the 6 vessels are not upgunned to plug holes in a small navy social around png lombrumsnaval base Fiji and coco islands etc got to make do with what you have. Excellent vessels by the way
What does one expect would be needed, in order for the OPV's to be fitted with useful offensive and defensive systems? What sensors, comms, electronics and CMS would be required to make the OPV's useful in a warfighting context?
What does one believe all the above would cost, and what is one actually prepared to spend on changing constabulary patrol vessels into combatants?
From where I sit, it looks like once again people are looking at the OPV's and seeing a grey-hulled naval vessel and want to turn it into a fighting ship when it is not and AFAIK was never really designed to be. Thinking one could realistically do so is akin to thinking that one could take a VIC or NSW Highway Patrol BMW X5 M Sport, add the armour package of an X5 Security car, and the use them as an IMV or APC. The reality is that whilst the selection could certainly be made (or directly ordered as security cars) and modified, the delivered end product would still be no where near an APC or even IMV in performance or capabilities.
At the end of the day you do the best you can with what you have.Civmec Presents Arafura Capability Enhancement At Indopac 2025
Australian shipbuilder Civmec has presented a weapons capability enhancement for the Arafura-class OPV at Indo Pacific 2025 in Sydney.
I know you are all going to say these aren’t warships but in times like these I’d much prefer these small ships to have offensive and defensive packages on them to survive at sea. Contribute to surveillance underwater and have assets spread across the pacific and economic zone while our warfighting vessels push further out. Not sure why the 6 vessels are not upgunned to plug holes in a small navy social around png lombrumsnaval base Fiji and coco islands etc got to make do with what you have. Excellent vessels by the way
We have six of them and while I wouldnt be trying to retro fit AEGIS to them instead of ordering new ships, I would be looked at scaled CEAFAR, and bolt on weapon options that integrate with their base SAAB 9lv CMS.
At worst they could be good training platforms for the Hunters and Hobarts. An idea would be to use one of them for various trials of competing systems we are considering for the majors, and for new tech.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
At the very least try to fit the 40mm Bofors as that was on the original design. As for missiles, would we hypothetically want it to have defensive capabilities (i.e. SeaRAM, Phalanx or the like; or offensive (NSM)?
If we want to go offensive we'd be better off with a cheap modern alternative of a PT boat.
Look at the Middle East. I believe Iran have dozens of fast missile boats.
War is now assymetrical with masses of small weapon systems going up against gold plated heavily armed warships. Look at what Ukraine is doing to Russia in the Black Sea.
Hypothetically, what sort of hull would be able to carry 4 NSM, a medium calibre gun, and machine guns with a top speed of about 40 knots?
As the saying goes, "What's Old Is New Again".
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There could be some merit in looking at fairly simple add-ons, but I would be quite hesitant about trying to change the radars, even for something like scaled CEA FAR panels. I do not have access to the numbers, but right from the start unless such changes/upgrades were dirt cheap, fast and simple to complete, I suspect that the amount of time and expense required would just not be worth what Australia and the RAN would end up getting.
Take CEA FAR panels for instance. Yes, the system is supposed to be designed to be scalable, so an array could most likely be designed which would physically fit aboard an Arafura-class OPV, but just because one could (likely) be physically fitted, that does not mean it would 'fit' or operate aboard that same vessel. For instance, would the current mast configuration be able to take CEA FAR panels? Would there be sufficient power and data cabling on the masts for panels to be fitted? With the mast config, would panels be able to get fitted with adequate and useful coverage?
Given how significantly the masts had to be redesigned for CEA FAR to be fitted aboard the ANZAC-class frigates, I tend to suspect that the OPV's current mast configuration would be inadequate for CEA FAR panels, even a scalable array to be both fitted and useful.
The next area of questions, and again this is all still just about fitting scalable CEA FAR panels, is whether the Arafura-class OPV's could 'handle' such radars. Does the OPV design have sufficient electric power and cooling to support a CEA FAR panel array? Similarly, does the current shipboard electronics and CMS config have enough power, cooling and spare processing capacity more contact data coming in? It is my understanding that whilst the Arafura-class OPV was designed to utilize the 9LV system like is fitted to the ANZAC-class frigates and the Canberra-class LHD, that was mostly via the Saab Australia-developed 9LV interface rather than a comprehensive, integrated combat data system. Further, the navigation and surveillance radar selected and integrated aboard the OPV is the Terma Scanter 6002 2D radar which suggests to me that adding CEA FAR or replacing the Scanter 6002 with CEA FAR might be a big step up in terms of data handling.
This then triggers the change of questions about whether or not the current electronics fitout could handle such radar changes and if not, could the electronics and computer fitout be quickly and easily changed/upgraded to do so. This could also require changes or improvements be made to shipboard power generation and cooling, as well more space being required to fit stations to control the CEA FAR arrays and/or more rack space if additional computer power is required.
Related side question: Does anyone know (only if they can and are free to comment) on whether or not the OPV's can participate in RAN datalinks and if so, which ones and in what capacity? IIRC the Huon-class MHC's could participate in Link 11, but receive only and the Arafura-class being intended as an OPV would most likely not have been designed with a comprehensive data system like a corvette or a frigate would.
Now yes, I would expect the OPV's to be able to get changed around and possibly some rearrangement of internal compartments, but if things get to the point were major changes to the superstructure would be required (like an entirely new mast design) then one has started to crossover into territory where it would just be better (faster, cheaper, more effective, or a combination of the three) to stop such upgrades and initiate the design of a class of corvettes.
Just look to NASAMS to see how scaleable CAE radars are. The Arafuras have a SAAB 9lv core combat system.
JMSDF Umikaze MCM USV on the Mogami is about the same size as the 10.5m Boomeranger Rhib.
The 8.5 Rhib/s could also be swapped out for multiple Speartooth UUVs which are about 9m long.
5 20ft container spots also… 2 below the flight deck and 3 above.
IMO, Arafura class opvs have alot of potential.
Still needs a main gun…
The 8.5 Rhib/s could also be swapped out for multiple Speartooth UUVs which are about 9m long.
5 20ft container spots also… 2 below the flight deck and 3 above.
IMO, Arafura class opvs have alot of potential.
Still needs a main gun…
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The concerns I have are not about the ability to scale the radar, but what the end product would actually deliver, and what would be required to get there.
I am going to use a couple of exaggerated hypotheticals to try and illustrate some of the concerns.
Consider the hypothetical where the Terma Scanter 6002 was either augmented or outright replaced by a scaled CEA FAR array, increasing the max ranges and altitudes that an Arafura-class OPV can detect and track contacts beyond the current ~96 n miles range and above the current max detection altitude of ~6,000 ft. Would there be any real value in making such upgrades if after the completion, the OPV's could not engage anything beyond self-defence ranges within say 9km distance & 2.5 km altitude (rough RIM-116 engagement envelope) AND the OPV could not relay contact to assets via datalink?
My contention is that if such circumstances are accurate, then spending time and coin on such upgrades would not end up delivering anything of real value.
By all means look at what might be able to be changed or augmented, but I suspect that installing something like additional or different radar systems would be more complicated than simply removing on emitter and replacing it with an array of emitters. If it turns out that some of the upgrade ideas raised would require vessels spend months or longer docked because internals and/or superstructure changes were required, then the upgrade ideas really are probably not worth doing. The class itself has already been behind in entering service by several years. If major changes to the superstructure, systems and/or internals are required to complete proposed upgrades, that will just push back their entry into service even further. All this despite the vessels still, at their core, not being designed and built as combatants and therefore likely being less survivable in the event of damage.
devo99
Well-Known Member
For future reference, the best look we've seen at the total footprint for an operational CEAFAR array face would be the faces they put on top of HMAS Choules a couple years ago. The limited room for any deck penetration on the faces over the bridge wings suggest even a frigate sized face can be pretty compact. Both photos courtesy of the RAN image gallery, cropped by myself.
The 6002 is a good but basic entry level radar. It's a rotating type, dual beam, x band solid state (uses gallium nitride which is the good stuff). It is however lower energy. Its max output is 300kw, in comparison to a SPY 1 that can put out at peak in the multiple MWs (it will cook a chook).
It is a military radar, so also comes with some protection against EW. It is designed for the close environment, which is out to the horizon. Its only 2D, so any weapons system is going to need another target acquisition sensor, such as an electro-optical finder. The Arafuras are fitted with the Saab EOS500, which is good enough for a gun system fire control. The 6002 and EOS500 work as a pair, the 6002 detecting, and then directing the EOS500 to lock on.
It can track objects at up to 500m/s (mach 1.5). It will only see out to 25 km (helo sized detection), and closer to 15 km for the horizon, It is capable of detecting sea skimming, small boat and small drones, however I would put money that is it not as quick or as discern8ng as a larger Saab or CEA radar though.
Its maximum altitude (about 2km) and range means that this will have very limited ballistic missile detection. This is where a more high powered radar will be of particular benefit
The Type 26 and Type 31 will both come with this radar, and there are many other small naval and coast guard ships that use it. Larger ships use it for helo ops and as a back up radar for general surface search. Its a useful x band paired with a C or S band main radar.
In overview, it is a perfectly adequate radar for its role as a constabulary patrol platform, that may encounter small boats and aircraft, could be exposed to drones and may need to work in conjunction with a helicopter. It could probably detect simple missile launches
Perhaps an easier upgrade pathway would be say the SAAB Sea Giraffe, which the AMB version is fitted to the LHDs. A different version is also fitted to the Visby Class corvettes, so it can go on small platforms. Its much lighter than the CEAFAR system, being about 200kgs as a single rotating panel. It also relatively low power so should be within the Arafura's capabilities, existing structure and weight margins. The Giraffe also introduces ECM, so it provides improved defence. Its a C band, with a range out to about 200kms, and has very good multiple target tracking capability. The most modern versions come with full AESA capability.
For better fire control, possibly upgrade to the SAAB Ceros 200, which adds an x band directional radar to the EOS500. This kind of system could provide very capable missile lock.
I suspect the 9LV will require an upgrade to accomodate the above, but its all part of an integrated family, and Saab have done this package many times before.
A Giraffe/C200 is overkill for a simple gun, but it provides a system that could detect and direct any short or medium range defence system.
I have always wondered about sea born radar systems. How do they see over the horizon? Is it something like HF which uses the ionisphere to reflect ?
They don’t. All radars other than ionosphere scattering radars like Jindalee, which require very large (ground based) arrays, are effectively limited to the horizon. So the SPQ-9B at the top of the mast of a Hobart can see a surface (or very low airborne) target at 15 or 16 miles. It is why radars tend to be mounted high in ships, and why Airborne Early Warning is so significant.
(Before some pedant points out super ducting and the like; yes, I know, I once had low lying land at nearly 200 miles; but they are unusual conditions and can’t be depended on)
(Before some pedant points out super ducting and the like; yes, I know, I once had low lying land at nearly 200 miles; but they are unusual conditions and can’t be depended on)
Last edited: