Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The only way any part of the Sirius ever goes to sea again is in sailor's razor blades.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
She was still in the water in February. So much of her was already gone though I didn't initially realise it was her.
- Notes Naval review
- Navantia's offer - 3 hobarts + six alpha 3000
- Luerssen offer - K130 and C-90 (Bulgeria)
- BAE dismisses reports of a 6 hunter + 3 AWD with 150vls.
All valid questions.
BAE managing director also wrote a peice.. most how important continious ship building is.
The only way they could get her out of the water over here, was to strip her down to main deck level, then slice into 3 pieces while still floating.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The ALFA 4000 Frigates of Navantia - DIMDEX
The Corvettes up to 3000t are known as the Avante Family, the Alpha is a 4000t 120m Frigate design, so the Australian can't even get the name right. Are they referring to the Avante 3000 or the Alpha 4000?
The ALFA 3000
100 crew, 27 knt, 5000nm at 15 knts. 16 VLS, 2x4 Anti ship launchers, 2x3 torpedo launchers.
600 million each if built in Spain. 800 million each if built in Aus.
The Alfa 4000 is longer/larger, has less range, more speed and 2x16vls + ciws
Type 31 still makes more sense. 7,000nm at 18 knt, 32 VLS, 100-120 crew. 750 million / 1 billion
Last edited:
Considering the Australian couldn't spell "Australian Defence Network" and even failed to capitalized the author's name who knows. I thought maybe I had missed something, that Navantia had developed some special model for the RAN?
Which reptilia is pointing out.
Which makes me wonder when did that get there, and is it seeing some sort of competition between the Type 31 and Alfa3000?
But it raises interesting points, how would a selection occur and how long would that take. Then who builds it, does the yard need to be upgraded (if its henderson, then likely yes, if not the main hall, then suppliers, and other support facilities). Many of those are SME that just got burned on Attack, now possibly Arafura, and maybe Hunter, and we want them to throw more money/time/people into the wind on this project?
Then there was the concept of operation/doctrine that even Markus admits, the US hasn't exactly worked out how that was going to work. Their 7,000t small frigate would be very different from our 2,000-5,000t frigate. Bit hard to guess on the platform, when its not really clear what the focus is or what its mission is.
Great, less range than a Daring. And fast routing speed is normally 18 or 20 knots, not 15
Guess it depends on where the ships are based and what you use them for, doesn’t sound like they are after fast ships that can travel vast distances or escort in the middle of the South China Sea. Leave that task for the tier 1 ships.
Over 600 million in upgrades to Darwin and Cairns will give us some idea.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Big difference in basing for a 1800t OPV with a crew of 40 with little combat capability and basing for an Anzac size Frigate with 120+ crew. The basing upgrades are badly needed for the Arafura's
Cairns is being upgraded to base 4 Arafuras.
if they go with a mmpv90 or k130, you would think they could also be based in cairns Being only 10m longer and 300-500 tons heavier.
Currently they take out Cape class boats and other vessels up to 70m and under 1,500 ton, they can also dock ships up to 4,000 ton.
A new 5,000 ton ship lift is on the cards taking ships up to 120m out of the water along with a new 95m wharf + new infrastructure/hard stands. taking over the fearnley st boat ramp.
Moderation Note: Please keep the discussion to the RAN or the ships of the RAN.
I have moved all posts that are about ships the RAN does not operate, and do not otherwise mention the RAN. Those ships are best discussed regarding details in those threads. Mogami's have gone to JMSDF, Type 31 and Type 45 to the Royal Navy thread, Italian ships to the Italian Navy threads, Spanish ships to Spanish threads. We are getting a cross mojonation of platforms going on in the RAN thread, none of which are operated by the RAN.
This is the RAN thread, and it is turning in to the universal maritime thread. Good and valid discussion about details can happen about these platforms on these other threads, I also note I am personally particularly guilty of this as are other mods, and their posts have been shuffled along as well.
I also ask that specific platform speculation be toned down in the RAN thread. I know, we all do it and its joyful, but we must stop. It is unproductive crystal balling. We all know the platforms, and the DSR hasn't even told us why type of ship or its mission. It is too broad to have a Ship VS Ship argument in the RAN thread when both ships may not even be relevant for the RAN after the Review. If you want to discuss the advantages of a specific platform, that is in service or being built for a Navy, discuss that in that navies relevant thread. Any class of new ships will be get a new name any way.
If you want to refer to a ship of a certain type that isn't in the RAN, then use a length (such as 80m or 90m) or displacement (2000t or 7000t) or mission (OPV, LHD, DDG, FFG etc).
I have moved all posts that are about ships the RAN does not operate, and do not otherwise mention the RAN. Those ships are best discussed regarding details in those threads. Mogami's have gone to JMSDF, Type 31 and Type 45 to the Royal Navy thread, Italian ships to the Italian Navy threads, Spanish ships to Spanish threads. We are getting a cross mojonation of platforms going on in the RAN thread, none of which are operated by the RAN.
This is the RAN thread, and it is turning in to the universal maritime thread. Good and valid discussion about details can happen about these platforms on these other threads, I also note I am personally particularly guilty of this as are other mods, and their posts have been shuffled along as well.
I also ask that specific platform speculation be toned down in the RAN thread. I know, we all do it and its joyful, but we must stop. It is unproductive crystal balling. We all know the platforms, and the DSR hasn't even told us why type of ship or its mission. It is too broad to have a Ship VS Ship argument in the RAN thread when both ships may not even be relevant for the RAN after the Review. If you want to discuss the advantages of a specific platform, that is in service or being built for a Navy, discuss that in that navies relevant thread. Any class of new ships will be get a new name any way.
If you want to refer to a ship of a certain type that isn't in the RAN, then use a length (such as 80m or 90m) or displacement (2000t or 7000t) or mission (OPV, LHD, DDG, FFG etc).
It strikes me that we haven't even determined what "second tier" is. For the USN it's the Constellations or possibly even the Burke's (assuming to the Ticonderogas are the first tier). In the RN is their first tier the type 45 or the type 26? Is the RNs second tier the type 26 or the type 31?
There's a new paper, What is a Corvette. OPINION | When is a corvette not a corvette? - Baird Maritime
Some interesting comparisons, for example the Hunters are 25-30% larger than the Hobart's, and almost three times the size of the ANZACs. The ANZACs are half the size of the Hobart's.
It could be argued the Hobart's will become our second tier, as they are smaller and less capable than the Hunters will be. In reality the Hobart's were a perfectly adequate replacement for the Adelaide class (OHP FFG7) frigates, but not for the Perth class destroyers.
Perhaps we should have bought three Burke's and built six F-100s?
The highly capable German Type 124 FFGs are about half the size of the Hunters and significantly smaller than the Hobart's, maybe we should have built twelve of them as well as three Burke's to replace the FFGs and ANZACs?
So many options, we could go around in circles just trying to determine first and second tier, let alone what is a destroyer, frigate or corvette. Then again, are we talking ASW, air defence, GP or patrol frigates?
This is why we are having an expert enquiry. Too many options too many opinions.
There's a new paper, What is a Corvette. OPINION | When is a corvette not a corvette? - Baird Maritime
Some interesting comparisons, for example the Hunters are 25-30% larger than the Hobart's, and almost three times the size of the ANZACs. The ANZACs are half the size of the Hobart's.
It could be argued the Hobart's will become our second tier, as they are smaller and less capable than the Hunters will be. In reality the Hobart's were a perfectly adequate replacement for the Adelaide class (OHP FFG7) frigates, but not for the Perth class destroyers.
Perhaps we should have bought three Burke's and built six F-100s?
The highly capable German Type 124 FFGs are about half the size of the Hunters and significantly smaller than the Hobart's, maybe we should have built twelve of them as well as three Burke's to replace the FFGs and ANZACs?
So many options, we could go around in circles just trying to determine first and second tier, let alone what is a destroyer, frigate or corvette. Then again, are we talking ASW, air defence, GP or patrol frigates?
This is why we are having an expert enquiry. Too many options too many opinions.
Meanwhile back in the real world of "too busy getting shit done to speculate about future stuff" :
"HMAS Anzac sails in company with USS Chung-Hoon through the South China Sea during a regional presence deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
"HMAS Anzac sails in company with USS Chung-Hoon through the South China Sea during a regional presence deployment."
Image Source : ADF Image Library
Brissy1982
Active Member
In my first post, I took a high-level view of what potential sources of conflict are foreseeable in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming decades (see post #4853 on 16 May 2023, page 243).
I have noted the recent mod posts about specific ship vs ship comparisons – I agree that such comparisons are really not what this thread is, or should be, about. Of course, I have my favourites, as I’m sure most other people on this thread do. But to be quite honest, I don’t really care about what the relevant platform is called, provided it is fit for purpose.
What I think would be really useful following the DSR is a discussion about the future of the RAN in the light of the DSR and the announced review into the surface fleet, given the Australian Government’s decision to acquire SSNs, and the DSR’s emphasis on increased long-range missile capabilities. With the future SSNs (both Virginia-class and AUKUS-SSN) representing a significant increase in the RAN’s submarine capability from the early 2030s, and the DSRs emphasis on a deterrence through denial strategy and increased long-range missile capabilities, I think the RAN is in line for a much-needed expansion in terms of both ship numbers and capabilities. It is therefore timely to consider what sorts of missions might the RAN surface fleet be called upon to perform in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming decades.
What I am going to focus on in this post, given the potential sources of conflict to which I referred in my first post, is what types of vessels would be best suited to fulfil the missions that might be required of the future RAN?
The following are my thoughts on the potential missions that might be required of the RAN and the vessel types best suited to them. What I am focusing on is where particular mission profiles should sit in a future RAN that has SSKs/SSNs and a well-balanced Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 surface fleet in which:
*LHDs and LSDs don't fit neatly into a Tier 1, 2 or 3 capability matrix, but in terms of the their ability to defend themselves and other vessels, they are definitely in the Tier 3 category, rather than Tier 1 or 2.
In my next post I’ll get into more specifics about what each type of combatant should be capable of doing – for now, please note that what I am not, and will not, be focusing on is a comparison of specific ship designs (e.g. Type 45 DDG vs Burke-class DDG, etc). Because the outcome of the review into the RAN surface fleet is still several months away, I’m putting my opinions on the merits of specific ship types aside to focus on what capabilities are appropriate for each mission type.
The key thing for any of the missions in the above table that any vessel in any tier might be required to undertake, given the long distances involved in both Australia’s local geography and the broader Indo-Pacific region’s geography, is that the future RAN’s missions in both peacetime and wartime require vessels with “long legs”, i.e. long endurance at moderate speeds – say 12 – 18 knots, combined with the ability to operate at higher speeds (20 – 30+ knots) for short periods when required.
I hope this post will be of interest - as I have previously stated, I welcome responses, whether positive or negative, as long as they are expressed respectfully.
I have noted the recent mod posts about specific ship vs ship comparisons – I agree that such comparisons are really not what this thread is, or should be, about. Of course, I have my favourites, as I’m sure most other people on this thread do. But to be quite honest, I don’t really care about what the relevant platform is called, provided it is fit for purpose.
What I think would be really useful following the DSR is a discussion about the future of the RAN in the light of the DSR and the announced review into the surface fleet, given the Australian Government’s decision to acquire SSNs, and the DSR’s emphasis on increased long-range missile capabilities. With the future SSNs (both Virginia-class and AUKUS-SSN) representing a significant increase in the RAN’s submarine capability from the early 2030s, and the DSRs emphasis on a deterrence through denial strategy and increased long-range missile capabilities, I think the RAN is in line for a much-needed expansion in terms of both ship numbers and capabilities. It is therefore timely to consider what sorts of missions might the RAN surface fleet be called upon to perform in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming decades.
What I am going to focus on in this post, given the potential sources of conflict to which I referred in my first post, is what types of vessels would be best suited to fulfil the missions that might be required of the future RAN?
The following are my thoughts on the potential missions that might be required of the RAN and the vessel types best suited to them. What I am focusing on is where particular mission profiles should sit in a future RAN that has SSKs/SSNs and a well-balanced Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 surface fleet in which:
- SSKs and SSNs would of course be Tier 1 combatants – these would have a primary ASW mission plus ASuW and strike missions, and a secondary mine warfare capability;
- Tier 1 surface combatants would be DDGs and FFGs – DDGs should have a primary long, medium and short-range AAW mission plus additional BMD, ASW, ASuW and strike capabilities, while FFGs should have a primary ASW mission plus additional medium and short-range AAW, ASuW and strike capabilities;
- Tier 2 surface combatants would be patrol frigates designed for long-range patrol and close escort of high-value units (HVUs) and merchant/civilian shipping with more limited medium and short-range AAW, ASW, ASuW and strike capabilities than Tier 1 surface combatants; and
- Tier 3 surface combatants would be OPVs and potentially OCVs or corvettes – OPVs should be focused on general patrol and constabulary missions within Australia’s EEZ, while OCVs or corvettes would be surface combatants of smaller size and shorter range than Tier 2s, while still possessing some medium and short-range AAW, ASW and ASuW capability.
Mission Type | Primary Responsibility | Combatant Tier |
| Local patrol duties in the waters within and immediately adjacent to Australia’s EEZ. | OPVs, future OCVs or corvettes | 3 |
| Longer-range patrol duties in the Indian Ocean, maritime South-East Asia, the Pacific Ocean and Southern Ocean. | Patrol frigates | 2 |
| Goodwill visits to countries across the Indo-Pacific to deepen relationships with Australia’s allies and friends. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Humanitarian and Disaster Relief (HADR) support to Australian communities and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region. | LHDs, LSD | 3* |
| Escorting civilian maritime traffic to provide protection against asymmetric threats from non-state actors (e.g. pirates and terrorists) in the waters within and immediately adjacent to Australia’s EEZ. | OPVs, future OCVs or corvettes | 3 |
| Escorting civilian maritime traffic to provide protection against asymmetric threats from non-state actors (e.g. pirates and terrorists) in the broader Indo-Pacific region. | Patrol frigates | 2 |
| Unilateral freedom of navigation operations (FONOPS) in the South China Sea and East China Sea, and any other maritime areas over which the PRC or any other nation might attempt to assert control. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Multilateral FONOPS in concert with naval units from other nations (e.g. the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia). | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Escorting civilian maritime traffic to provide protection against threats from state actors in the broader Indo-Pacific region. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Boarding operations on the high seas to enforce economic sanctions against state actors. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Interdiction of enemy merchant shipping on the high seas to disrupt the flow of trade to enemy nations. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Mine countermeasures operations to ensure that Australia’s sea lanes and ports are kept clear/cleared of mines. | MHCs, OPVs, future OCVs or corvettes | 3 |
| Mine warfare operations to close enemy sea lanes and ports to maritime traffic. | SSKs, SSNs | 1 |
| Amphibious warfare operations. | LHDs, LSD | 3* |
| Escorting LHDs, LSDs and LPDs to perform AAW, BMD, ASW and ASuW roles in support of amphibious warfare operations. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| AAW, BMD, NGS missions in support of friendly forces ashore. | DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Strike missions in support of friendly forces ashore. | SSNs, DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| ASuW missions against enemy naval forces. | SSNs, DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Strike missions against enemy land-based forces and infrastructure. | SSNs, DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
| Integrating into U.S. carrier strike groups (CSGs) to perform AAW, BMD, ASW and ASuW roles. | SSNs, DDGs, FFGs, patrol frigates | 1 & 2 |
*LHDs and LSDs don't fit neatly into a Tier 1, 2 or 3 capability matrix, but in terms of the their ability to defend themselves and other vessels, they are definitely in the Tier 3 category, rather than Tier 1 or 2.
In my next post I’ll get into more specifics about what each type of combatant should be capable of doing – for now, please note that what I am not, and will not, be focusing on is a comparison of specific ship designs (e.g. Type 45 DDG vs Burke-class DDG, etc). Because the outcome of the review into the RAN surface fleet is still several months away, I’m putting my opinions on the merits of specific ship types aside to focus on what capabilities are appropriate for each mission type.
The key thing for any of the missions in the above table that any vessel in any tier might be required to undertake, given the long distances involved in both Australia’s local geography and the broader Indo-Pacific region’s geography, is that the future RAN’s missions in both peacetime and wartime require vessels with “long legs”, i.e. long endurance at moderate speeds – say 12 – 18 knots, combined with the ability to operate at higher speeds (20 – 30+ knots) for short periods when required.
I hope this post will be of interest - as I have previously stated, I welcome responses, whether positive or negative, as long as they are expressed respectfully.
A tier 2 long range patrol frigate would have to come all the way from FBE or FBW. The planned ship lifts in Darwin and Cairns are the same size 103m long, 20 odd wide, 6m deep, 5,000 ton max lift, specifically for Capes, Arafuras, Anzacs and other smaller ships. You would think that rules out anything bigger or more capable than an Anzac being based in the North. If they want something more capable than a tier 2 Anzac (which has been stated by government), then the only option for the north is a corvette, smaller hull with greatly increased firepower at the cost of range, speed and versatility.
With a GPF, The cost of having more crew, a meaningless 2,500-3,000km journey from the east or west to the north and the cost of stopover or refueling in the north for a longer journey to patrol or escort far away from home is the routine of a tier 1 ship and doesn’t divert from the way we do things currently.
In my opinion hobarts, hunters, Anzacs and virginias will be meshed into 1 category for specific long distance roles, the tier 2 category being corvettes, opvs, pbs, usvs, uuvs, uavs protecting and further projecting from inside the eez and surrounds In a variety of roles.
Last edited:
We tried basing more combat power, Army admittedly, in the top end, and the word at the time was that it caused a significant increase in separations. Some, as from a Navy perspective our friend Assail, loved it. Many, however disliked the climate and the weather, or the physical and social environment, or the distance they or their partners were from family support, and voted with their feet. We already have retention and recruiting issues; we don’t need to add to them.
The same was true when Navy moved a lot of people who came from the east coast to the west, and told them they would spend their careers there, although at least the weather wasn’t a factor. 30 years or so later, that is still apparently a problem because the main recruiting base is, and will of course remain, the east coast. Let’s not make it worse when, for Navy at least, the strategic reasons to do so are, to put it mildly, not strong.
The same was true when Navy moved a lot of people who came from the east coast to the west, and told them they would spend their careers there, although at least the weather wasn’t a factor. 30 years or so later, that is still apparently a problem because the main recruiting base is, and will of course remain, the east coast. Let’s not make it worse when, for Navy at least, the strategic reasons to do so are, to put it mildly, not strong.
I agree to some degree but having lived in Darwin during the draw down of defence there I can also see the counter argument.
While there were those who hated it there were a great many who didn't mind or even loved it. The biggest issue was the lack of opportunity as more and more senior roles were moved south.
The removal of a couple of thousand families from Darwin completely changed the place, it lost critical mass. The removal of functions and senior roles from Darwin ment the loss of opportunity. Less people, less money, businesses going bust, others moving out, less opportunities for kids and spouses.
Comparatively junior people promoted and left unsupervised because the size of the presence, be it ADF, APS, or corporate, didn't warrant a more senior, more experienced or competent person.
All of this flows from the shinking of Canberra's commitment to an ADF presence in Darwin over the last ten years.
Brissy1982
Active Member
Thanks for your reply @Reptilia - those are all very good points. It will be interesting to see what the review of the RAN surface fleet recommends in terms of the balance between different tiers of vessels and capabilities, and I have no doubt that the role of unmanned systems will be of increasing importance for the future RAN.