Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Morgo]

View attachment 49958

Jesus mate are you from Damen’s sales department or something?

It looks like a perfectly fine ship and if we were starting with a clean sheet of paper it might have a role. But there is no way I can see that these would be hitting the water before Hunters will.

If you are indeed from Damen it’d be nice if you could do the Commonwealth a deal on 2 Enforcer LPDs for the RAN and a dozen LST120Hs for the Army. Cheers.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

(Moderators please advise if this is not sufficiently relevant and it can be moved elsewhere. I think it is relevant to how the RAN develops in coming years.)

On Friday 16 December Japan announced a major overhaul of its National Defence Strategy. Critically this includes developing a “counterstrike” capability based on long range missiles such as Harpoon, and a doubling of spending to 2% of GDP over the next five years. This will make an interesting comparison with Australia’s new force posture In March 2023.

There is reporting of the announcement here:

As regional threats rise, Japan shifts away from defense-only strategy

Japan on Friday adopted a national security strategy declaring plans to possess preemptive strike capability and cruise missiles within years to give itself more offensive footing against threats from neighboring China, Russia and North Korea.

www.pbs.org

The strategy is here.

https://www.mod.go.jp/en/publ/w_paper/wp2022/DOJ2022_Digest_EN.pdf

Note there are some interesting maps on pages 4 onwards that descibe where new shore based anti ship and anti air missile batteries. The plan seems to be to build SSM and SAM batteries on islands stretching south towards Taiwan (the Senkakus).

Presumably this will also allow arming of Japanese NSDF ships and subs with Tomahawk.

@Scott Elaurant I have copied this post over to

Japan, Koreas, China and Taiwan regional issues

2 more KC-46s Is the bare minimum to have at least a couple of tankers always ready... A country like Japan needs at least a dozen Pegasus...

www.defencetalk.com

Ngatimozart.

 

[swerve]

The upgraded RAN ANZAC-class FFH's are second tier RAN vessels, for all intents and purposes.
...

Three Hobart class (primarily AAW) & eight ANZAC . . . . They're most of the RAN's surface war-fighting fleet. They're the main tier.

 

[Volkodav]

Three Hobart class (primarily AAW) & eight ANZAC . . . . They're most of the RAN's surface war-fighting fleet. They're the main tier.

Sadly true.

The ANZACs were ordered as Patrol Frigates as part of the defence white paper developed from Paul Dibbs review into Australia's defences. They were ordered as a new second tier capability, in place of the previous specialist ASW frigate / destroyer escorts that were no longer seen as critical with the changing strategic situation.

They were intended to fill a role that the RAN had long required to meet their stated mission, but had not been equipped for since WWII. A reasonably ranged ship, able provide presence, protect itself and assist in the defence of other ships, through out our area of interest. This capability had always been seen as supplementary to the role of the high end destroyers and frigates, but beyond what could be provided by patrol boats and repurposed mine sweeper/hunters that were being pressed into the role.

They were ment to supplement the nine DDGs and FFGs or the first tier, and in turn, support and be supported by the dozen or so helicopter equipped, missile (ESSM and Harpoon) armed corvettes that were flagged to replace the patrol boats and become the third tier.

The corvettes were never ordered to in reality the third tier never really existed, while the DDGs were retired as the ANZACs entered service, making them first tier by default.

When it was decided to upgrade the FFGs and ANZACs instead of building new major combatants the tier concept basically disappeared and the ANZACs became, by default, major surface combatants.

Had there been any conception in RAN or government during the late 80s, that a future government would recast the ANZACs as major surface combatants it is certain that either something much larger and more capable, or alternately, smaller and very obviously not a GP frigate, would have been specified.

 

[hauritz]

The navy has always had a high/low mix. Regardless of the Dibb recommendations I saw the Anzacs as basically a straight up replacement for the River class DE. The ANZACs were basically forced to cover the role of a more frontline warship but the requirement for a second tier warship never really went away.
If the rumours of a corvette are true they would simply be returning the navy to the status quo.

 

[Redlands18]

The navy has always had a high/low mix. Regardless of the Dibb recommendations I saw the Anzacs as basically a straight up replacement for the River class DE. The ANZACs were basically forced to cover the role of a more frontline warship but the requirement for a second tier warship never really went away.
If the rumours of a corvette are true they would simply be returning the navy to the status quo.

The Anzacs in the end were too big, too small and too new, too big to cover the Corvette role too small to replace the DDGs and too new so the GOTD was able to tell the RAN "You have 10 Frigates under 15yo, upgrade them.

 

[Volkodav]

The navy has always had a high/low mix. Regardless of the Dibb recommendations I saw the Anzacs as basically a straight up replacement for the River class DE. The ANZACs were basically forced to cover the role of a more frontline warship but the requirement for a second tier warship never really went away.
If the rumours of a corvette are true they would simply be returning the navy to the status quo.

They were not a replacement for the capability the River Class were acquired for. The Rivers were acquired as high end ASW platforms but we're retained well past her use by date, and after they had been de-spected (through obsolescence) to little more than glorified patrol vessels.

The RAN had originally been looking for a high end ASW platform, think Type 23, Type 123, M Class at a stretch, or even the option of additional OHP class FFGs (at one time as many as ten FFGs were proposed).

Paul Dibb actually stated the ANZACs were ,as acquired, too large and too capable, meaning cuts would likely be made elsewhere. I don't think even he realised just how bad things would get when the political classes and bureaucrats decided the ANZACs were the new gold standard of what an Australian warship should be.

The myths that the rivers were low end warships, and that the ANZACs were acquired as a like for like replacement is bad enough, the fact that the ANZACs are now seen as our high end capability is even worse.

The ANZACs were acquired as Patrol Frigates, when or strategic situation dictated that ASW was no longer as important, and that they were part of a fleet that included as many, or more high end, multi-role FFGs and DDGs. They were also to be supported by smaller combatants with similar combat power but shorted range, lower endurance.

What we ended up with was upgraded ANZACs plus three Hobarts. What it was meant to be, when the ANZACs were conceived, was a minimum of nine high end guided missile destroyers and frigates (though not necessarily AEGIS), the ANZACs and a dozen corvettes with Mk41 Sea Sparrow (upgradable to ESSM), Harpoon and SuperSeaSprite/SuperLynx with Penguin and ASW torpedoes.

This was all in a strategically much more benign environment.

We instead spent our money LHDs, multiple generations of patrol boats, multiple botched upgrades and failed procurements, while shrinking the number of trained, competent personnel.

 

[Tbone]

we should be looking at the crossover 115 and working on its speed and combatant upgrades. The personal numbers are low and it really can perform all duties required for the modern Australian navy at a fraction of the cost of other frigates. The RAN need nodes and a higher number of vessels in the water.. these vessels could perform amphibious roles like getting a company of soldiers and air defence missile batteries to islands in the pacific, humanitarian disaster roles during peace time. Extra VLS in the water. ASW role and new drone capability.
marles and this government should stop the OPV’s at 8 vessels then immediately start building the 8 MMCM mine hunter vessels of the same class… to keep lurssen content and production beat on track.
Following on from that Damen should be contacted and the crossover vessel built this gives 5year of lead time before the vessel hits the water in 2028.
8 of these vessels to be built would dramatically give the government options in around the pacific.
6 x AAW Destroyers
8x Hunter ASW Frigates
8x Crossover Multi Purpose Light frigates
8x Arafura OPV
8x MMCM Mine hunter
2x LHD, upgraded for f35 and MQ-9b STOL

 

[Volkodav]

What we should be looking at is our strategic situation, what our government needs the ADF to do, and what the ADF require to do it.

Considerations include what we already have, what contracts are in place, what capacity and time we have for design, building, training and buying what we need.

After all of this we can determine which, if any, existing options can provide a timely solution for the problem.

 

[DDG38]

8 of these vessels to be built would dramatically give the government options in around the pacific.
6 x AAW Destroyers
8x Hunter ASW Frigates
8x Crossover Multi Purpose Light frigates
8x Arafura OPV
8x MMCM Mine hunter
2x LHD, upgraded for f35 and MQ-9b STOL

Yep, and where are you to find the ship's company to man 3 extra DDGs and your extra 8 swiss army knives ? Enquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Stampede]

What we should be looking at is our strategic situation, what our government needs the ADF to do, and what the ADF require to do it.

Considerations include what we already have, what contracts are in place, what capacity and time we have for design, building, training and buying what we need.

After all of this we can determine which, if any, existing options can provide a timely solution for the problem.

Perception of threat versus time = outcome.

Government perception of time is key.

What fantasy fleet becomes reality fleet will be outlined next year.

I'm open to both some constants and some surprises.

Of all the RAN platforms, some clarity on the OPV's will be interesting.
Its certainly an area that has generated passionate debate on DT.

In a few months we will have an insight into how we intend to deal with our "strategic situation "

Hmmmmmmmm

Cheers S

 

[Redlands18]

we should be looking at the crossover 115 and working on its speed and combatant upgrades. The personal numbers are low and it really can perform all duties required for the modern Australian navy at a fraction of the cost of other frigates. The RAN need nodes and a higher number of vessels in the water.. these vessels could perform amphibious roles like getting a company of soldiers and air defence missile batteries to islands in the pacific, humanitarian disaster roles during peace time. Extra VLS in the water. ASW role and new drone capability.
marles and this government should stop the OPV’s at 8 vessels then immediately start building the 8 MMCM mine hunter vessels of the same class… to keep lurssen content and production beat on track.
Following on from that Damen should be contacted and the crossover vessel built this gives 5year of lead time before the vessel hits the water in 2028.
8 of these vessels to be built would dramatically give the government options in around the pacific.
6 x AAW Destroyers
8x Hunter ASW Frigates
8x Crossover Multi Purpose Light frigates
8x Arafura OPV
8x MMCM Mine hunter
2x LHD, upgraded for f35 and MQ-9b STOL

Repeating a post 3 times is not going to win you any fans on DT and may draw the ire of the Mods.

 

[hauritz]

Fantasy fleets are all well and good but at the end of the day they need to be paid for and manned. In Australia’s case they also need to be in service ASAP which means proven design already in service with another nation.
The scope of any new project will be known next year but the rumours seem to suggest that they might be swapping out the Arafuras for corvettes.
The numbers being thrown around are also pretty modest by modern warship standards. I believe the Australian newspaper suggested between $5 to $6 billion for 12 vessels. This compares to around $4 billion for the OPVs. That doesn’t suggest that there will be a big jump in capability.
So moderate those expectations. For that money and the available crews I am thinking most likely just a stretched, upgunned version of what we are already building.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Fantasy fleets are all well and good but at the end of the day they need to be paid for and manned. In Australia’s case they also need to be in service ASAP which means proven design already in service with another nation.

For the time frames we are looking at 2025-2032 that will basically be a requirement. We could update, slightly improve, refit an existing design, but it would basically need to be the same and inservice. An existing inservice ship will also help with training and bringing it to FOC, we can second people to that existing in the water ship, and we may be able to poach some sailors across from it when ours comes online either offically through a secondment or directly.

individual ships do not matter. Capability matters, and you don't really get capability until you get 2-3 ships into the water.

The scope of any new project will be known next year but the rumours seem to suggest that they might be swapping out the Arafuras for corvettes.
The numbers being thrown around are also pretty modest by modern warship standards. I believe the Australian newspaper suggested between $5 to $6 billion for 12 vessels. This compares to around $4 billion for the OPVs. That doesn’t suggest that there will be a big jump in capability.

I would caution on listening to the papers and ASPI. I think there is some value discussing OPV vs Corvettes in the context of the RAN, but I think believing the money and volume of ships is, at best, difficult to believe. There is nothing stopping the media from saying 24 corvettes for $1 billion, but it doesn't make it achievable. Selection and specification of a corvette would take ~12 months min, and then many of a corvettes weapon systems aren't in service with the RAN. Then where does the crew come from?

Its not even clear to me what a corvettes mission and operation would be. Where would they be stationed, doing what? What is their strategic value to Australia? China is ~8000km away. Corvettes typically operate in enclosed waters or in archipelago regions.

 

[alexsa]

we should be looking at the crossover 115 and working on its speed and combatant upgrades. The personal numbers are low and it really can perform all duties required for the modern Australian navy at a fraction of the cost of other frigates. The RAN need nodes and a higher number of vessels in the water.. these vessels could perform amphibious roles like getting a company of soldiers and air defence missile batteries to islands in the pacific, humanitarian disaster roles during peace time. Extra VLS in the water. ASW role and new drone capability.
marles and this government should stop the OPV’s at 8 vessels then immediately start building the 8 MMCM mine hunter vessels of the same class… to keep lurssen content and production beat on track.
Following on from that Damen should be contacted and the crossover vessel built this gives 5year of lead time before the vessel hits the water in 2028.
8 of these vessels to be built would dramatically give the government options in around the pacific.
6 x AAW Destroyers
8x Hunter ASW Frigates
8x Crossover Multi Purpose Light frigates
8x Arafura OPV
8x MMCM Mine hunter
2x LHD, upgraded for f35 and MQ-9b STOL

Speed upgrades are not a simple matter, nor is upgrading combat systems. The Crossover dedicates considerable space and weight to ramps, 'X' decks, cargo and and well decks (depending onthe version) and an amphibous capability. This would be well suited to a smaller navy noting the RAN has two LHS's, an LHA and a future requirement for a JSS. The JSS will be considerably bigger than any of the Crossovers and I cannot see the point in building a ship that may have less usable volume for systems and weapons (noting also that additional fuel will be required to get that cruising speed above 18 knots without killing range) compared to the ANZAC.

You cannot smply morph this vessel into a very capable surface combatant because there are likley to be limitations in the design and the it may not have the growm margin given the space and weight commited to the 'cross over capability.

Just because it looks good does not make it the right vessel for the job.

As a warning, noting you have also proposed this on the RNZN thread, if you are going to keep pushing this you had better have a good justification for it. Alternatively you could read the response from some of the defence pros and get a better understanding. As you a new no points have been applied but this will change if you do not follow guidance.

alexsa

 

[Joe Black]

An interesting video on the Ghost Shark XL AUV

It is interesting that the vessel is 3D printed.

 

[Stampede]

A nice shot from defence images of ADV Reliant.
Certainly shows the potential space of the deck area.
Note the LCVP's on board.
The vessel may not of being my first choice but I'm coming around to it's potential.
Importantly it was available for service straight away.




Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Another image to share

Parking"big things" in a tight space.

Trust most of the crew get to enjoy a well earned Christmas break.

Impressive sight

 

[Todjaeger]

Another image to share

Parking"big things" in a tight space.

Trust most of the crew get to enjoy a well earned Christmas break.

Impressive sight




View attachment 49972

I will be honest and state that images like those in the previous post often makes me feel somewhat queasy, particularly in December. All of the RAN's DDG's and LHD's tied up alongside together brings to mind images of Battleship Row on a certain December day many years ago.

 

[76mmGuns]

A nice shot from defence images of ADV Reliant.
Certainly shows the potential space of the deck area.
Note the LCVP's on board.
The vessel may not of being my first choice but I'm coming around to it's potential.
Importantly it was available for service straight away.

View attachment 49971


Cheers S

Nice view. I'd not realised how large the rear half was. I've only seen photos from the front, which make it look like the ship was all Helicopter pad, with a short back. Not a perfect ship, but I can see has some cargo carrying ability now