Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

Adelaide, ANZAC, Hobart, and Hunter Classes all have a Hangar and flight deck, main gun, a ASM and ASW capability plus SAM's for aerial protection, coupled with the communication and sensors to make these realms work.
The classes have their speciality's and and various levels of capability from class to class to do there respective jobs; but at the end of the day they can ALL make a contribution to the various offensive / defensive realms on / under and above the ocean.

Whether the vessel is 4000t or 10,000t if they can do the above, are they all classified as Tier one in the RAN ?

I don't know the answer, but it may have something to do with what the authors of the naval review are looking at.

Therefore Is a Tier two vessel one that caters for ALL the "realms" discussed above, but with reduced missile/gun loadout and commensurate sensor capacity in a much smaller platform.

Or

is it a much smaller platform that can only accommodate a limited selection of these warfare "realms".
ie a ASW specialist with no SAM capability or some other combination of the above?


For the review, I'm trying to divorce my aspersions and fantasy fleets with what is in the limited wording within the DSR to get some sense of what may eventuate down the track.

No disrespect to Brissy1982's very detailed post ( 4935), but Tier Two looks a very elastic term.

In a nutshell, are we looking at an slightly enhanced 80 to 90m platform or a complete new Class of vessel?


I do find it very difficult to believe today they don't already know the broad answer for what will eventually be made public later in the year.



Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

I can’t help thinking the RAN Fleet review is just going to be a cost cutting exercise dressed up as some type of new strategy. I’ll eat my hat and come and mow everyone’s lawn if the 2035 ship building plan leaves us with more than 12 destroyers or frigates over 5000 ton.

 

[Brissy1982]

Adelaide, ANZAC, Hobart, and Hunter Classes all have a Hangar and flight deck, main gun, a ASM and ASW capability plus SAM's for aerial protection, coupled with the communication and sensors to make these realms work.
The classes have their speciality's and and various levels of capability from class to class to do there respective jobs; but at the end of the day they can ALL make a contribution to the various offensive / defensive realms on / under and above the ocean.

Whether the vessel is 4000t or 10,000t if they can do the above, are they all classified as Tier one in the RAN ?

I don't know the answer, but it may have something to do with what the authors of the naval review are looking at.

Therefore Is a Tier two vessel one that caters for ALL the "realms" discussed above, but with reduced missile/gun loadout and commensurate sensor capacity in a much smaller platform.

Or

is it a much smaller platform that can only accommodate a limited selection of these warfare "realms".
ie a ASW specialist with no SAM capability or some other combination of the above?


For the review, I'm trying to divorce my aspersions and fantasy fleets with what is in the limited wording within the DSR to get some sense of what may eventuate down the track.

No disrespect to Brissy1982's very detailed post ( 4935), but Tier Two looks a very elastic term.

In a nutshell, are we looking at an slightly enhanced 80 to 90m platform or a complete new Class of vessel?


I do find it very difficult to believe today they don't already know the broad answer for what will eventually be made public later in the year.



Cheers S

I totally agree that what is Tier 2 is elastic at this point - it will be interesting to see what the review into the RAN surface fleet defines as Tier 2 capabilities.

I have my own view of what Tier 2 looks like, and I'll set that out in much more detail in a future post, but essentially it's a vessel capable of independent long range patrol and close escort duties for high value units (HVUs), with a reasonable short to medium range AAW, ASW and ASuW capability, and potentially some limited strike capability, but which is smaller and has considerably less magazine depth than a Tier 1 combatant. Without committing to an absolute definition, I think a future Tier 2 is a long-range patrol frigate in the order of 5000-6000 tons displacement, with ~32 strike-length VLS cells for a combination of short to medium range SAMs (e.g. quad-packed ESSM or CAMM) and perhaps some Tomahawks and/or LRASM, plus canister launched NSMs, a medium calibre gun, a CIWS and 1x MH-60R or similar.

You might look at that and think, "But that's Tier 1 in terms of what the RAN currently operates" and you'd be quite correct.

However, what has to be considered is not what Tier 1 looks like for a long underfunded, under-resourced and under-equipped RAN, but rather what Tier 1 and Tier 2 look like for the future RAN.

I think the coming review of the RAN'S surface fleet is going to lead to a significant increase in both the numbers and the capabilities of the RAN's surface ships.

The thing that's hard to imagine for many of us who've served in the RAN over the past 30-40 years is that the RAN might no longer constantly be asked to do more with less, as it has been asked to do for so long. For the first time in decades, there might actually be some really significant investment in increasing the RAN's capabilities, and I am genuinely hopeful about that.

@Reptilia's post in response to mine shows that reasonable minds can differ on what defines Tier 1 and Tier 2 (see posts #4935 and #4936), and I think @Reptilia raises some excellent questions.

Ultimately, I anticipate that the review of the RAN's surface fleet will define what Tier 1 and Tier 2 will actually mean in practice for the RAN in the coming decades. We will just have to wait and see what the review concludes.

 

[old faithful]

I can’t help thinking the RAN Fleet review is just going to be a cost cutting exercise dressed up as some type of new strategy. I’ll eat my hat and come and mow everyone’s lawn if the 2035 ship building plan leaves us with more than 12 destroyers or frigates over 5000 ton.

This whole DSR looks that way mate.
ADF will become a stand off missile defence force, until the missiles run out.....the subs are the only real good thing.
RAAF gets more munitions, and that's about it.
Army gets HIMARs, already ordered, but the munitions are very expensive, and really, what kind of shelf life do they have and how many will we have in stock? Already ordered before the DSR, and still don't know how many extra units will be ordered, if any.

 

[Arclighy]

I'd like to know what the terms of reference for the Navy review are? In a recent interview with the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Joint Defence Strategic Review author, Angus Houston said, "We think our Navy has to have much better lethality. To have tier two type ships, the Offshore Patrol Vessels, to be totally unarmed just isn't acceptable. We think increased lethality is very important in our tier one ships and our tier two ships..." (Interview on Youtube about 34.52). I can't be sure, but I think this does give some indication about what the report authors are referring to when they talk of tier two ships. Just a thought.

 

[Volkodav]

I'd like to know what the terms of reference for the Navy review are? In a recent interview with the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Joint Defence Strategic Review author, Angus Houston said, "We think our Navy has to have much better lethality. To have tier two type ships, the Offshore Patrol Vessels, to be totally unarmed just isn't acceptable. We think increased lethality is very important in our tier one ships and our tier two ships..." (Interview on Youtube about 34.52). I can't be sure, but I think this does give some indication about what the report authors are referring to when they talk of tier two ships. Just a thought.

As Houston is exRAAF I don't think he would envision an armed patrol boat or opv as lethal, in the same way he wouldn't consider and armed Hawk LIFT as a fighter or strike aircraft, or an armed Fokker Friendship as an MPA.

Talking lethality they would have to be talking a K130 as the bare minimum, but considering the size of the Hunter, anything under 7000tons could honestly be called smaller.

Back when Smith was DefMin he explicitly stated the six Type 26 would be a suitable number, weird that a decade later that numbers come up again.

 

[Reptilia]

As Houston is exRAAF I don't think he would envision an armed patrol boat or opv as lethal, in the same way he wouldn't consider and armed Hawk LIFT as a fighter or strike aircraft, or an armed Fokker Friendship as an MPA.

Talking lethality they would have to be talking a K130 as the bare minimum, but considering the size of the Hunter, anything under 7000tons could honestly be called smaller.

Back when Smith was DefMin he explicitly stated the six Type 26 would be a suitable number, weird that a decade later that numbers come up again.

Agree that the K130, whether it be the German or Israeli variant or hybrid makes the most sense across the board and seems to match what the government has been saying, but it’s only viable if the majority of the class is based in Darwin and it looks like the precinct has been approved.


Last years concept video on the nt government webpage.

Darwin Ship Lift Facility

The Darwin ship lift facility will service the needs of the general maritime sector within the Asia Pacific region and long-term needs of the defence sector.

invest.nt.gov.au

Current status of the infrastructure project and last updated 28/05/2023.

Darwin Ship Lift Facility - Infrastructure Pipeline

The Darwin Ship Lift Facility will provide a site for maintenance and servicing of Defence and Australian Border Force vessels.

infrastructurepipeline.org

 

[Bob53]

I totally agree that what is Tier 2 is elastic at this point - it will be interesting to see what the review into the RAN surface fleet defines as Tier 2 capabilities.

I have my own view of what Tier 2 looks like, and I'll set that out in much more detail in a future post, but essentially it's a vessel capable of independent long range patrol and close escort duties for high value units (HVUs), with a reasonable short to medium range AAW, ASW and ASuW capability, and potentially some limited strike capability, but which is smaller and has considerably less magazine depth than a Tier 1 combatant. Without committing to an absolute definition, I think a future Tier 2 is a long-range patrol frigate in the order of 5000-6000 tons displacement, with ~32 strike-length VLS cells for a combination of short to medium range SAMs (e.g. quad-packed ESSM or CAMM) and perhaps some Tomahawks and/or LRASM, plus canister launched NSMs, a medium calibre gun, a CIWS and 1x MH-60R or similar.

You might look at that and think, "But that's Tier 1 in terms of what the RAN currently operates" and you'd be quite correct.

However, what has to be considered is not what Tier 1 looks like for a long underfunded, under-resourced and under-equipped RAN, but rather what Tier 1 and Tier 2 look like for the future RAN.

I think the coming review of the RAN'S surface fleet is going to lead to a significant increase in both the numbers and the capabilities of the RAN's surface ships.

The thing that's hard to imagine for many of us who've served in the RAN over the past 30-40 years is that the RAN might no longer constantly be asked to do more with less, as it has been asked to do for so long. For the first time in decades, there might actually be some really significant investment in increasing the RAN's capabilities, and I am genuinely hopeful about that.

@Reptilia's post in response to mine shows that reasonable minds can differ on what defines Tier 1 and Tier 2 (see posts #4935 and #4936), and I think @Reptilia raises some excellent questions.

Ultimately, I anticipate that the review of the RAN's surface fleet will define what Tier 1 and Tier 2 will actually mean in practice for the RAN in the coming decades. We will just have to wait and see what the review concludes.

I haven’t entered fantasy fleet discussions but the vessel your describing here is a lot like the USN frigate program.

 

[Volkodav]

I haven’t entered fantasy fleet discussions but the vessel your describing here is a lot like the USN frigate program.

The US frigate program is a lot like the Hunter class program but without the same level of capability, systems or growth margins. In fact the Type 26 was a contender for the US program.

Also the USN has their ongoing destroyer program, as well as plans to replace their cruisers.

 

[Stampede]

I totally agree that what is Tier 2 is elastic at this point - it will be interesting to see what the review into the RAN surface fleet defines as Tier 2 capabilities.

I have my own view of what Tier 2 looks like, and I'll set that out in much more detail in a future post, but essentially it's a vessel capable of independent long range patrol and close escort duties for high value units (HVUs), with a reasonable short to medium range AAW, ASW and ASuW capability, and potentially some limited strike capability, but which is smaller and has considerably less magazine depth than a Tier 1 combatant. Without committing to an absolute definition, I think a future Tier 2 is a long-range patrol frigate in the order of 5000-6000 tons displacement, with ~32 strike-length VLS cells for a combination of short to medium range SAMs (e.g. quad-packed ESSM or CAMM) and perhaps some Tomahawks and/or LRASM, plus canister launched NSMs, a medium calibre gun, a CIWS and 1x MH-60R or similar.

You might look at that and think, "But that's Tier 1 in terms of what the RAN currently operates" and you'd be quite correct.

However, what has to be considered is not what Tier 1 looks like for a long underfunded, under-resourced and under-equipped RAN, but rather what Tier 1 and Tier 2 look like for the future RAN.

I think the coming review of the RAN'S surface fleet is going to lead to a significant increase in both the numbers and the capabilities of the RAN's surface ships.

The thing that's hard to imagine for many of us who've served in the RAN over the past 30-40 years is that the RAN might no longer constantly be asked to do more with less, as it has been asked to do for so long. For the first time in decades, there might actually be some really significant investment in increasing the RAN's capabilities, and I am genuinely hopeful about that.

@Reptilia's post in response to mine shows that reasonable minds can differ on what defines Tier 1 and Tier 2 (see posts #4935 and #4936), and I think @Reptilia raises some excellent questions.

Ultimately, I anticipate that the review of the RAN's surface fleet will define what Tier 1 and Tier 2 will actually mean in practice for the RAN in the coming decades. We will just have to wait and see what the review concludes.

I recall many years ago the suggestion that 14 hulls / vessels would be the ideal number of combatants for the RAN.
Combatants would equal the Tier1 and 2 in the context you describe.

So to maintain the positivity, a future fleet of 6 Hunters and 6 Tier 2???? plus 3 Hobarts will get to this sized force of 14 to 15 vessels.

The unknow is will the Tier 2 have teeth?

Will the RAN get a genuine growth in numbers and weapons load out or something else.

Reluctantly I'm thinking compromise and something small.

Hope I'm wrong.


Cheers S

 

[spoz]

The alterations to DNB are to accommodate the Arafuras. That they would also allow considerably larger vessels to berth there is to some extent at least, serendipity- although to do so would have to be at the expense of the Arafuras.

 

[seaspear]

The description of a navy with tier 1&2 ships quite often focuses on the VLS but not on the capability of radars sensors ,even c.e.c which is supposed to be a force multiplier unless this is exaggerated, I cannot find a version on P.L.A.N ships, certainly not forgetting satellite surveillance of arenas of concern that passes such information to naval ships for strategic use ,I could go into what the R.A.A.F brings to this with their assets ,the R.A.N does appear to have a balanced capability in their forces

 

[Todjaeger]

Now that I have finished reading through the entire public version of the DSR, I cannot find where it was mentioned that the Hunter-class FFG build was/is/will be reduced from nine hulls to six. If someone could point out where that is mentioned or raised as a possibility, I would appreciate it.

I still posit though that I would describe the proposed focused future force posture as a version of DDOA. Repositioning Army units and bases into the North, well away from most of the major population centres (as well as giving up some of the options for depth of defence) just strikes me as well, dumb. The discussion about using land-based AShM has already been had and whilst I remain dubious about it being viable for the USMC, it just does not seem either reasonable or sensible for Australia.

One area which could make it more viable for the US, is if the US decided to reactivate bases at various distant islands like at Midway, Wake, or Johnston Atoll, as well as increasing the forces defending Guam. I do not really see this as being a viable option for Australia, because most of the islands claimed by Australia are essentially the tops of undersea mounts, which would make bring in sufficient assets both difficult and expensive, as well as the resulting costs to sustain such forces. Also the location of Australian island IMO is not really ideal for use as any sort of FOB or area to pre-position forces, particularly given the difficulty in landing and then supporting such forces.

 

[hauritz]

I'd like to know what the terms of reference for the Navy review are? In a recent interview with the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Joint Defence Strategic Review author, Angus Houston said, "We think our Navy has to have much better lethality. To have tier two type ships, the Offshore Patrol Vessels, to be totally unarmed just isn't acceptable. We think increased lethality is very important in our tier one ships and our tier two ships..." (Interview on Youtube about 34.52). I can't be sure, but I think this does give some indication about what the report authors are referring to when they talk of tier two ships. Just a thought.

I do take some heart in that Angus Houston used the term “lethality”. Gives me some hope that we are not going to simply get an upgunned OPV. He also mentioned the USN acquiring smaller ships by which I hope he is referring to the new frigates and not the Littoral Combat Ships.

I think we will still see upgunned OPVs but I don’t think this will be intended as a second tier warship. All his talk about the importance of long range missiles seems to indicate that you need a ship large enough for a substantial missile load out.

He also said he expected the Virginias to enter service before the Hunters which could be taken as a good thing or a bad thing.

A good thing would be if we got the Virginias earlier than planned. A bad thing would be that there will be more delays in the Hunter program. At the moment I think both the first Hunter and the first Virginia are due around 2032.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Now that I have finished reading through the entire public version of the DSR, I cannot find where it was mentioned that the Hunter-class FFG build was/is/will be reduced from nine hulls to six. If someone could point out where that is mentioned or raised as a possibility, I would appreciate it.

I don't think it has. I can't find it either.

The only reports of Hunter under threat are the media. Certainly the Hunter program was reviewed by the audit office and there were plenty of problems found, and some in the media take that its going to get cancelled. If every time an audit found issues, Australia would have abandoned Hobarts, Collins, Anzacs, LHD, Superhornets, F111's, E7s, etc etc.

The Hunter has a clear mission, replacing a clear and important type, and is arguably the most capable platform available. The Anzacs, while aging, are arguably the most capable they have ever been, are being further upgraded, and are going to serve with the RAN for a while yet and aren't disappearing tomorrow. While its running a bit late, and there were issues around how the project was structured, selected, and operated, the first Type 26 doesn't get commissioned until 2026 at the earliest, so it hardly expected to overtake the UK build which started years earlier.

Its arguably the OPV mission that is a bit more clouded. Particularly as some countries have that mission given to coast guard, or border force. While Australia has always had patrol ships and boats, they haven't always been 80m vessels armed with a 25mm gun. Small combat ships would definitely overlap with their space and mission. So either the OPV get more weaponry or a new platform replaces them with weapons on it. There is going to have to be a significant reorganisation of the patrol force crewing anyway, none of the Arafura's are commissioned, and they could be operated as civilian crewed ships or by overseas navies.

I guess what is Tier 2 and what isn't is a fair discussion. Key would be combat capable, and the Arafuras are very not combat ships, not with just a 25mm gun. They are less combat capable than they were even planned to be, and their weapons fitout was downgraded from what Brunei has. But they have good sensors. They would be a good surveillance, eez enforcement capability. Particularly if they were spread around the region, 2 based in PNG, 2 Based in Fiji, 1 based in Timor, 1 in Micronesia. Operation cost is a question, but it is a question of money really. Not a lot of money really. Stick in a few ADF officers on each one. They could exercise with major fleet units when they are in the same area.

I do not really see this as being a viable option for Australia, because most of the islands claimed by Australia are essentially the tops of undersea mounts, which would make bring in sufficient assets both difficult and expensive, as well as the resulting costs to sustain such forces.

I don't see Australia really militarizing its islands either, those islands are really far away from basically everything. The biggest thing is probably 737 E7/P8, peregrine etc operating from them. Because they are still 500+km from even other friendlies, and many thousands of km away from hostiles. They provide strategic depth more than they provide forward outposts.

Guam, Butterworth, Singapore, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, are much much much much closer. Our far flung possessions add strategic depth to those more front line spaces. Australia has more strategic depth than the US, as the US makes up part of our strategic depth. But it is in our interest to help the Americans, of course.

 

[hauritz]

When discussing what is acceptable as a tier two ship I think it is worth looking at the US and UK experience. These are our AUKUS partners and have both committed to what they believe is a suitable tier two design that is capable of operations in a modern high end combat environment and they have both come up with ships that are similar in size and capability.

I don’t believe a corvette sized vessel, let’s say something like a K-130, would cut it in a modern high end combat environment. The Chinese are capable of blackening the sky with anti-ship missiles. These missiles could be launched from air, sea or land. A ship armed with C Dome or Sea Ram probably wouldn’t survive much longer than an Arafura armed with a 25mm deck gun.

The DSR makes it clear we need to be able to build an array of sophisticated missile types in Australia and frankly I think it would be absurd to choose a ship type that didn’t have the ability to operate those missiles.

 

[Stampede]

When discussing what is acceptable as a tier two ship I think it is worth looking at the US and UK experience. These are our AUKUS partners and have both committed to what they believe is a suitable tier two design that is capable of operations in a modern high end combat environment and they have both come up with ships that are similar in size and capability.

I don’t believe a corvette sized vessel, let’s say something like a K-130, would cut it in a modern high end combat environment. The Chinese are capable of blackening the sky with anti-ship missiles. These missiles could be launched from air, sea or land. A ship armed with C Dome or Sea Ram probably wouldn’t survive much longer than an Arafura armed with a 25mm deck gun.

The DSR makes it clear we need to be able to build an array of sophisticated missile types in Australia and frankly I think it would be absurd to choose a ship type that didn’t have the ability to operate those missiles.

Are we looking at vessel that sails within the protective umbrella of tier one vessels that can in its own way provide something to the taskforce.
i.e. an asset rather than a liability.

or

are we just looking at something that is more militarily capable than a OPV with no pretentions of sailing apart of a task force against a near peer adversary.

The former would probably be a much smaller number of vessels compared to the later.

Both scenario's have attributes and limitations.


Cheers S

 

[Maranoa]

After watching the DSRs progress and the follow on inaction from the Albanese Govt beyond further reviews, I suspect we now have what we are going to get and the entire exercise was smoke and mirrors. Sadly I suspect it has been nothing more than digging for extra NDIS funding as there have been no major new 'urgent' defence acquisitions and even the money earmarked for 2022-23 and 23-24 frozen by the DSR seems to have just evaporated.

 

[hauritz]

Are we looking at vessel that sails within the protective umbrella of tier one vessels that can in its own way provide something to the taskforce.
i.e. an asset rather than a liability.

or

are we just looking at something that is more militarily capable than a OPV with no pretentions of sailing apart of a task force against a near peer adversary.

The former would probably be a much smaller number of vessels compared to the later.

Both scenario's have attributes and limitations.


Cheers S

It wouldn’t surprise me if we got both. In the short term production of the Arafura could be swapped over to Lurrsens OPV 90 with better weapons or perhaps some half assed attempt will be made to upgun the Arafura. A proper tier two design would follow.

The thing is that I don’t see them being able to fast track a Tier two vessel into service before the end of the decade. Until they are ready to build these new ships they will need to keep the shipyard occupied so they would probably continue building OPVs.

 

[Stampede]

It wouldn’t surprise me if we got both. In the short term production of the Arafura could be swapped over to Lurrsens OPV 90 with better weapons or perhaps some half assed attempt will be made to upgun the Arafura. A proper tier two design would follow.

The thing is that I don’t see them being able to fast track a Tier two vessel into service before the end of the decade. Until they are ready to build these new ships they will need to keep the shipyard occupied so they would probably continue building OPVs.

Don't disagree.

The production line out at Henderson will keep making 80 to 90 m ships.
What we call them have your guess.

Cannot see a tier 2. 5000t ship happening this side of 2032, so really not sure of its purpose unless it is to provide additional fleet numbers down the track.

As stated recently, no mention of a cut to build numbers in the DSR so what and how does that work.

My bet Hunters continue as is with their
eventual numbers realistically determined in the 2030's.

We get a 90m Lurrsen something called a "whatever" with a modest increase in capability compared to a 80m OPV.

It appears we don't have surplus money in the next few years budgets to be making fanciful demands for grand purchases.

Low unemployment also seems a challenge for defence recruiting and retention.


Cheers S