Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ddxx]

The French do, & they built the Floreals: 3000 tons, 9000 sea miles at 15 knots. Part of their role was taken over by the La Fayette class, which can dawdle along at 12 knots over the same distance, & they're now working on a long range variant of the European Patrol Corvette.

And then there's the Danish Thetis class, designed for long endurance Arctic patrol: 8700 nm at 15 knots, 60 days endurance.

As you say: if range is wanted, they can design it.

The point is rather that whilst a 'small' vessel can indeed have great range and endurance, it can't simultaneously be heavily armed. Small vessels require more trade offs, if you want greater armament you have to take weight and space away from fuel and stores resulting in less range and endurance.

The vessels you mentioned all have very limited armament and radars/systems which is critical to allowing for their range and endurance given their size. E.g. the Floréal Class is only equiped with a very basic radar, 1x 100mm MCG, and 2x 20mm SCG (with provision for 2 Exocet AShMs)
- certainly no VLS, CIWS, AESA Radar and high-end CMS - all heavy, bulky, high-energy systems.

Trying to "cram" in a lot of systems and weapons onto a small platform also adds complexity and in turn cost compared to larger more space rich designs which make for less complex integration.

-

On another note, NVL/Luerssen's claim that their "C90" corvette requires a crew of only 60 is incredibly suspect.
The OPV 90 it is based upon has less weapons and systems and requires a crew of 86.

 

[Volkodav]

The point is rather that whilst a 'small' vessel can indeed have great range and endurance, it can't simultaneously be heavily armed. Small vessels require more trade offs, if you want greater armament you have to take weight and space away from fuel and stores resulting in less range and endurance.

The vessels you mentioned all have very limited armament and radars/systems which is critical to allowing for their range and endurance given their size. E.g. the Floréal Class is only equiped with a very basic radar, 1x 100mm MCG, and 2x 20mm SCG (with provision for 2 Exocet AShMs)
- certainly no VLS, CIWS, AESA Radar and high-end CMS - all heavy, bulky, high-energy systems.

Trying to "cram" in a lot of systems and weapons onto a small platform also adds complexity and in turn cost compared to larger more space rich designs which make for less complex integration.

-

On another note, NVL/Luerssen's claim that their "C90" corvette requires a crew of only 60 is incredibly suspect.
The OPV 90 it is based upon has less weapons and systems and requires a crew of 86.

This has been seen over and over, small tight design sold to do everything, turns out it can't even effectively undertake its primary role. It then gets replaced by a much larger more capable design that actually claims less.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I think people get too caught up in this sort of thing. Go back to using rates as the basis for classification? after all what was a frigate if not 5th or 6th rate as opposed to a 1st rate Ship 'o' the Line?

For example, if we call a patrol/GP frigate like the ANZAC's a 6th rate and an ASW/AAW frigate like the Type26 a 5th rate then everyone knows what they are and job done.

Corvettes could go back to being unrated given the mission sets and the generally limited armament and potential for fluctuating displacements that might occur due to range/endurance requirements.

I can't help thinking if it now makes more sense to use an age-of-sale era style rating system for warships counting the total number of VLS tubes and SSMs the way they used to count cannon. So 96 VLS is a 2nd Rate, 64 VLS is a 4th Rate and so on. It would be imperfect (Some ships will have more/less helicopters etc) but it makes more sense than calling a 3000 ton ship and an 8000 ton ship both "Frigates".

 

[StingrayOZ]

On another note, NVL/Luerssen's claim that their "C90" corvette requires a crew of only 60 is incredibly suspect.
The OPV 90 it is based upon has less weapons and systems and requires a crew of 86.

Just to further clarify, its not the C90 they are putting forward, but an evolved ship based on it.

The C90 design would likely need to be extended with a larger helicopter hanger as the current Bulgarian AS565 Panther medium helicopter (13.68m length, 3.97m height) is more compact than the RAN MH-60R Seahawk helicopter (19.7m length, 5.18m height).

University of Sydney, United States Studies Centre foreign policy and defence director Professor Peter J. Dean, who worked as a co-lead of the 2023 Defence Strategic Review Secretariat for the independent leads, said Defence will be assessing costs, schedule risks, workforce and maintenance in relation to any proposal for a new Navy corvette.

“As the (Defence Strategic Review) capability section says, it's about speed to capability. Some (designs) are less mature, Defence is going to have to offset maturity of design, scheduling and costs,” he said. “The ultimate aim they're looking at is doing things with less risk, less costs, and really a big emphasis on speed.

“They (Luerssen) have a workforce, they have a shipyard, they have a vessel that's an evolution of the OPV that delivers as much capability on paper as an ANZAC Class frigate does; that can be done quickly. On the surface, that's a strong combination of factors, a workforce, a shipyard, an evolved design… that is already under construction.

Luerssen proposes ‘more bang for your buck’ Navy corvette

Multi-billion-dollar German shipbuilder Lürssen is proposing a ‘more bang for your buck’ C90 corvette for delivery to the Royal Australian Navy by 2028. The German shipbuilder, also known as NV

www.defenceconnect.com.au

So we are probably looking at a ~6m longer ship. Closer to 100m. Probably closer to 3000t. More fuel, food, stores, crew space.
Crew, yeh could be up to 90.

The advantage of NVL:

Large 65,000t floating dock big enough everything other than a US/UK carrier.

• Already in Australia
• Already building ships off a parent design
• MMP90 is pretty close to what we could get, 9LV, gun, missiles, we could even live with the first ship having standard radar and helo.
• Modified hangar and endurance and radar.
• They say they can build it here

For those who say this is terrible, just newer Anzacs with a reduced crew and more weapons, is that such a bad thing? Also, what happens, if because we have been and will continue to flog the Anzacs, if they don't last the distance? We will be left with basically nothing. Arafura's aren't going to push back Chinese threats at all. They yard needs work and needs it now. They need something already being built.

That dock tho, solves another government problem, and in time may become more valuable than than the corvettes. The Americans would like to see that capability in Australia in the Indian ocean.

Yes we may have to look at perhaps forward deployment to Fiji or and Singapore/Malaysia or Manus.

Imagine how terrible that would be for sailors. Being based out of Fiji/Manus or Singapore/Malaysia on a shiny new ship, fly in fly out crewing.

I'm not saying this is a brilliant idea. But it may perhaps not be the dumbest idea to ever get air. There is at least some thought about industry, build capability.

Speed of the build is a real thing. We are being open about by 2030 the normal world order is over and everyone will be at war to some degree.
How much more can we afford to fuck around looking for perfection. This deal comes with a 65,000t floating dock and draw Australia and Germany closer together in defence.

Germany who has more money than they can spend on defence and needs to spend it fast, and Australia, with underutilized capacity in stuff they want.

 

[ASSAIL]

Last time the USN lost a helo in Shoalwater Bay we despatched the droggies (Hydrographersj quick time and they successfully located the wreckage.
Where are their ships now?
Have we decommissioned all the hulls and given the jobs to civvies?
This stupidity reminds me of the foolish outsourcing of naval engineering 20 years ago and that worked well didn’t it!

 

[Volkodav]

Just to further clarify, its not the C90 they are putting forward, but an evolved ship based on it.

Luerssen proposes ‘more bang for your buck’ Navy corvette

Multi-billion-dollar German shipbuilder Lürssen is proposing a ‘more bang for your buck’ C90 corvette for delivery to the Royal Australian Navy by 2028. The German shipbuilder, also known as NV

www.defenceconnect.com.au

So we are probably looking at a ~6m longer ship. Closer to 100m. Probably closer to 3000t. More fuel, food, stores, crew space.
Crew, yeh could be up to 90.

The advantage of NVL:

Large 65,000t floating dock big enough everything other than a US/UK carrier.

• Already in Australia
• Already building ships off a parent design
• MMP90 is pretty close to what we could get, 9LV, gun, missiles, we could even live with the first ship having standard radar and helo.
• Modified hangar and endurance and radar.
• They say they can build it here

For those who say this is terrible, just newer Anzacs with a reduced crew and more weapons, is that such a bad thing? Also, what happens, if because we have been and will continue to flog the Anzacs, if they don't last the distance? We will be left with basically nothing. Arafura's aren't going to push back Chinese threats at all. They yard needs work and needs it now. They need something already being built.

That dock tho, solves another government problem, and in time may become more valuable than than the corvettes. The Americans would like to see that capability in Australia in the Indian ocean.

Yes we may have to look at perhaps forward deployment to Fiji or and Singapore/Malaysia or Manus.

Imagine how terrible that would be for sailors. Being based out of Fiji/Manus or Singapore/Malaysia on a shiny new ship, fly in fly out crewing.

I'm not saying this is a brilliant idea. But it may perhaps not be the dumbest idea to ever get air. There is at least some thought about industry, build capability.

Speed of the build is a real thing. We are being open about by 2030 the normal world order is over and everyone will be at war to some degree.
How much more can we afford to fuck around looking for perfection. This deal comes with a 65,000t floating dock and draw Australia and Germany closer together in defence.

Germany who has more money than they can spend on defence and needs to spend it fast, and Australia, with underutilized capacity in stuff they want.

What do you know, ten corvettes with 16VLS each have a total of 160 VLS which is more than the 32 VLS on one Hunter, who would have thought.

Too bad no mention is made of the fact that nine Hunters have a combined 288 VLS, not to forget, AEGIS and a whopping great avtive phased array radar. Nor is there mention of the model or specifically the length of the VLS being discussed for the corvettes.

WTF?

Was that piece written to convince primary school children? Then again they may have acquired the IQ test results for our current MPs and think they are dumb enough to fall for the con.

 

[Redlands18]

What do you know, ten corvettes with 16VLS each have a total of 160 VLS which is more than the 32 VLS on one Hunter, who would have thought.

Too bad no mention is made of the fact that nine Hunters have a combined 288 VLS, not to forget, AEGIS and a whopping great avtive phased array radar. Nor is there mention of the model or specifically the length of the VLS being discussed for the corvettes.

WTF?

Was that piece written to convince primary school children? Then again they may have acquired the IQ test results for our current MPs and think they are dumb enough to fall for the con.

Read the Defence Connect comments section, that is where you will find the school children.

 

[Volkodav]

Read the Defence Connect comments section, that is where you will find the school children.

I read some, my eyes started bleeding and I stopped.

Some commentators get it, pointing out the context of range at a given speed and the other examples of cherry picking.

You take the perfectly logical concept of a survivable corvette instead of PBs and OPVs and some idiot thinks its as good as an ANZAC and can be acquired instead of Hunters.

What needs to be done is to get the message out that there is we have no DDGs, three FFGs and eight GP frigates, which are actually interim upgrades of a patrol frigate.

There is a need for more high end ships, i.e. proper destroyers supported by an improved frigate, either GP or specialist ASW.

This should be in addition to the ANZAC/ Patrol Frigate replacement.

Three FFG/DDG is not enough, a two ocean navy needs at least five to generate two available for operations.

Rule of thumb:
3 hulls guarantee 1 available
4 still 1
5 provides 2 (2 deployed, 2 in port, 1 in refit)
6 and 7, still 2
8 provides 3 (3,3,2)
9 -3 (3,3,3)
10-4 (4,4,2)
11-4 (4,4,3)
12-4 (4,4,4)
13-5 (5,5,3)
14-5 (5,5,4)
15-6 (6,6,3)
And so on.

There will always be times when you have more hulls available but, in particular, as they start to age, and need more work, upgrades etc. they will spend more time unavailable.

So, bare minimum for a two ocean navy is five of any platform to ensure one is available in that ocean. By all means cut Hunter to eight and still have three available, even cut it to six, but acquire two destroyers to supplement the Hobarts.

The mix needs to make sense, each type of ship type needs to be complementary and needs to have been procured in sufficient numbers to be available on each coast and for deployment.

There are minimum levels of performance, range at speed, sensors, weapons, habitability, survivability. There are many ways the mix can be tuned to meet requirements, but only if the platforms used meet minimum performance requirement.

 

[spoz]

I’m not sure that even an evolved C99 is anything like a modern day Anzac. ANZACs have good quality damage control systems and are a generally fairly survivable design. As we have previously agreed, that would not really describe the C90s parent designs, which do not seem designed to go in harm’s way, which an Anzac, for all its faults, is. Luerssen may have fixed that of course; but it would I imagine it would be a significant redesign.

 

[StingrayOZ]

What do you know, ten corvettes with 16VLS each have a total of 160 VLS which is more than the 32 VLS on one Hunter, who would have thought.

I wouldn't get overly excited over 16 vls, that's a bit of a stretch goal and may be reduced to 8 depending on sea states and radar.

I don't see this replacing the Hunters. However the Hunters maybe respecified with less flex space,less asw focus, more missiles.

I can see this replacing the remaining 6 Arafura an perhaps the first 6.

 

[Volkodav]

I re-read the Henderson report the other day and it still, 123 years later makes sense.

Forget Battlecruiser and protected cruiser terminology and look at it this way.

Instead of:
8 Battlecruisers
10 protected cruiser
18 destroyers
12 submarines
3 destroyer tenders
1 depot ship

8 large destroyers
10 frigates
18 corvettes
12 submarines
3 AORs

 

[Stampede]

One only has to look at Denmark to see that, some big bloody ships but not the number of systems you would see on a comparable sized ship, they are low cost and low crewed.

I re-read the Henderson report the other day and it still, 123 years later makes sense.

Forget Battlecruiser and protected cruiser terminology and look at it this way.

Instead of:
8 Battlecruisers
10 protected cruiser
18 destroyers
12 submarines
3 destroyer tenders
1 depot ship

8 large destroyers
10 frigates
18 corvettes
12 submarines
3 AORs

Tier 2 is still a mystery.

What size ship will it be and what are the trade off's if any to the rest of the fleets numbers.
The assumption seems to be less Hunters and more of this Tier 2 something.

A couple of points

What ever Tier 2 ship is chosen it will still be a long term build.
A lot can happen in this time frame regardless of the planned intentions of a report in 2023.

The same goes for the build numbers of the Hunter Class assuming it is still going ahead,

Something else to consider.
I see this new class of vessel more in comparison to the existing Arafura Class rather than the existing majors.
Again working on the assumption the Hunter Class continues ,which I'd suspect it will.
Again a long term project. we may get six Hunters, we may eventually get nine, twelve or Fifteen. No one knows in 2023.

For myself, OPV80 Arafura Class versus the capability's or the Tier 2 vessel.
This is the comparison
.
Suggest a more robust and flexible RAN going forward.

At this stage very optimistic that this will be a good result.


Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

I’m not sure that even an evolved C99 is anything like a modern day Anzac. ANZACs have good quality damage control systems and are a generally fairly survivable design. As we have previously agreed, that would not really describe the C90s parent designs, which do not seem designed to go in harm’s way, which an Anzac, for all its faults, is. Luerssen may have fixed that of course; but it would I imagine it would be a significant redesign.

Lurrsen explanation on why the OPV90 was a better fit for RAN than K130 was interesting, this is useful I think when a designer is talking about the difference between two of their own products. Many of the corvettes are made for quieter waters than the Pacific/Indian ocean. It may be that normal corvettes are not suitable and a up armed OPV may be more suitable for the waters it operates. While a ship may or may not see combat, a ship will definitely see ocean. If it is not suitable for the ocean, it doesn't matter how more combat built it is.

In Australia's case, it won't be dealing with low range threats, like terrorists. The threats are big peers. In that context, lots of little compartments may not matter when there is 500kg warhead travelling a mach 2 hitting your corvette, there is no staying in the fight and damage control in that situation, its all or nothing.

The OPV90 is still an up armed OPV, not a frigate. Lurrsen designs and makes frigates, they are larger and differently configured, with more redundancy, generation, stores, more compartments, etc. But all that takes space, costs more, takes longer to build, more crew etc. The OPV90 has ~70% commonality with the OPV's, so in terms of risk and effort, that is a lot less than Type 31, Navantia destroyers and corvettes. Nothing against them, but its too late.

However it may be useful to have a few up armed OPV's, while the Hobarts are all out of the water, the Anzacs are out of the water, Collins is out of the water, and the RAN has very little surface combat ship capability. While we wait for Hunters. While we wait for SSNs. While China invades Taiwan, while war in Europe rages. Our biggest issue is one of our own creation with block obsolesce and block upgrades across the whole fleet.

They wouldn't be able to replace either the Hobarts or the Anzacs or the Hunters, but it would be some capability, we could afford it, and crew it. We would have some Anzacs, so they can still do the long range heavy stuff.

If we wanted to dispose of them, some medium sized corvettes with low crewing needs, I imagine would be popular on the second hand market in SEA, Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

I don't think Australia has the luxury of looking for a perfect solution. Just less bad options.

I would love if my armchair, was a magical time travelling armchair, and we could go back to right so many wrongs. But unfortunately my armchair just goes forward in time, one second per second.

 

[Volkodav]

Lurrsen explanation on why the OPV90 was a better fit for RAN than K130 was interesting, this is useful I think when a designer is talking about the difference between two of their own products. Many of the corvettes are made for quieter waters than the Pacific/Indian ocean. It may be that normal corvettes are not suitable and a up armed OPV may be more suitable for the waters it operates. While a ship may or may not see combat, a ship will definitely see ocean. If it is not suitable for the ocean, it doesn't matter how more combat built it is.

In Australia's case, it won't be dealing with low range threats, like terrorists. The threats are big peers. In that context, lots of little compartments may not matter when there is 500kg warhead travelling a mach 2 hitting your corvette, there is no staying in the fight and damage control in that situation, its all or nothing.

The OPV90 is still an up armed OPV, not a frigate. Lurrsen designs and makes frigates, they are larger and differently configured, with more redundancy, generation, stores, more compartments, etc. But all that takes space, costs more, takes longer to build, more crew etc. The OPV90 has ~70% commonality with the OPV's, so in terms of risk and effort, that is a lot less than Type 31, Navantia destroyers and corvettes. Nothing against them, but its too late.

However it may be useful to have a few up armed OPV's, while the Hobarts are all out of the water, the Anzacs are out of the water, Collins is out of the water, and the RAN has very little surface combat ship capability. While we wait for Hunters. While we wait for SSNs. While China invades Taiwan, while war in Europe rages. Our biggest issue is one of our own creation with block obsolesce and block upgrades across the whole fleet.

They wouldn't be able to replace either the Hobarts or the Anzacs or the Hunters, but it would be some capability, we could afford it, and crew it. We would have some Anzacs, so they can still do the long range heavy stuff.

If we wanted to dispose of them, some medium sized corvettes with low crewing needs, I imagine would be popular on the second hand market in SEA, Eastern Europe or elsewhere.

I don't think Australia has the luxury of looking for a perfect solution. Just less bad options.

I would love if my armchair, was a magical time travelling armchair, and we could go back to right so many wrongs. But unfortunately my armchair just goes forward in time, one second per second.

You don't need a magical time travelling armchair, you just need decision makers who can read and comprehend the many perfectly adequate reports and reviews, going back over a century, outlining the types and numbers of platforms required by our geography.

 

[spoz]

Stingray, you’re obviously not expecting to have to go sea in the thing. There is an old maxim that the ship is the best lifebelt. Staying afloat is always the objective - float, move, fight. And the better your DC the more likely you are to be able to that. The alternative is to effectively write off the ship’s companies for what outcome? It has to happen in some circumstances (as Yarra), but we are not in the game of setting ourselves up for that. I’m now too old to have to be personally concerned but there are plenty who do have to worry.

 

[seaspear]

After reading through the comments of experienced defence pros , can it be asked what roles a RAN corvette could be expected to play and not play, and the theatres of those operations? ,I would imagine they would want to even avoid tier two opponents ,could a very large corvette play a supportive role if the review identifies such a need?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Stingray, you’re obviously not expecting to have to go sea in the thing. There is an old maxim that the ship is the best lifebelt. Staying afloat is always the objective - float, move, fight. And the better your DC the more likely you are to be able to that. The alternative is to effectively write off the ship’s companies for what outcome? It has to happen in some circumstances (as Yarra), but we are not in the game of setting ourselves up for that. I’m now too old to have to be personally concerned but there are plenty who do have to worry.

I don't build or select the ships, or sail them. Just trying to understand them.

However, there is I think a connection to low crewing and how much damage control you can realistically do. They don't build ships like they used to. Look at say Oberon to Collins, which went from 7-9 airtight bulkheads to collins which has two splitting the sub into roughly thirds.

We no longer build ships with belted armor. We no longer build battleships.

With 60 crew, with a fair number on the bridge, you aren't going to be able to do damage control like a WW2 cruiser could or in the same way. Your threats are different, its not a 5" shell that is likely to do damage, but a large missile with way more kinetic damage. With that in mind, designs evolve.

Ship design values different things now. Better egress in emergencies, better/more automated systems. I assume these ships priorities crew sortie out of the ship over locking themselves in a compartment and fighting at all cost to keep the ship. There is damage control, but its not based around surviving an impact and detonation from 500-1000kg high explosive warhead.

Its not just battledamage. But even shipping accidents. Like HNOMS Helge Ingstad. If this ship is rammed by a large Chinese coast guard ship, yes we may have to abandon the ship. But these ships should never be in that situation.

These are minimum force ships. Like the presence alone should deter any threat, by their mere existence. Deterring things like Unarmed ships, unarmed drones, unarmed aircraft, grey zone situations, close to us and far away from the enemies territory.

Lurrsen is pushing their OPV90 design over the K130. Their point was sea keeping, and their argument is 90m is better than 80m OPV and that the OPV was more suitable for Australia than the K130 hull is. If you disagree, call Peter Lürssen.

If you think the AusGov should be building better ships than OPV's, then tell them that. They will say they are. They have Anzacs, Hobarts and are building Hunters, and have submarines and aircraft. These ships are cheaper and relieve larger ships from these sort of missions, meaning we can use those more capable ships on more capable missions.

These ships are more of a deterrent than they are to be front line combat ships. They aren't front line, they are second or third line. Even if forward deployed, they are more about deterrent, closing an easy opening that is makes it much harder for the opposition to no longer be worth it. At ~4,000km+ away from China, doing low value escorting, air tracking, EEZ enforcement backed by aircraft etc, that is probably pretty reasonable. If we were going to operate these ships 100km from mainland China, maybe we would need something more capable and much more survivable.

Anything more significant than a drone or UAV coming within 500km of these ships, its the wrong ship. Hobarts, Hunters, Burkes, carriers and Submarines.

I too value human life. Building an OPV does not mean devaluing the lives of sailors on it.

 

[Stampede]

My observation on DT is there appears two scenario's only, that being high end war fighting taking on a modern gunned up armada or alternatively constabulary duties.
A gross generalisation maybe, but there appears very little conversation around the middle ground and how we tackle that dynamic.
Major vessels are over kill and constabulary vessels are not up to the task.

Tier 2 vessels are on the table for a reason.

Numbers and flexibility.

We have a limited number or major fleet units trying to do to many roles.

7 to 8 vessels in the water on a good day.

Our coastline is massive and we are surrounded by a vast expanse of water.

Its a big challenge.
In fact it is realistically too big a challenge.

The RAN will need to think differently and accept the trade offs in capability found in a corvette / light frigate sized vessel in its future fleet.
The assumption being that fleet numbers grow.

Re the value of a human life
It's not about devaluing the worth of a sailors life.
Such vulnerability can be found on a battleship as it can on a patrol boat depending on the situation.

Its about getting the fleet mix right going forward to tackle the full diversity of roles entrusted to the RAN.

I can see a place for a C90 or equivalent going forward.
It's not what it can't do but rather what it can.
Principally a lot more than a under gunned OPV.

Cheers S

 

[DDG38]

There is damage control, but its not based around surviving an impact and detonation from 500-1000kg high explosive warhead.

I would really like to know what information you've based that statement on, because the very principle of RAN DC is to save the ship at all costs. I last did DC training in 2006 and as far as I know the basic techniques and drills haven't changed, it's about stopping floods/fires as quickly as possible to keep the ship afloat. Anyone who's been through sea checks/WUPS will tell you that DCXs are built around major missile impacts, loss of compartments and personnel and then doing everything you can to save what's left of the ship.

 

[Jason_DBF]

I would really like to know what information you've based that statement on, because the very principle of RAN DC is to save the ship at all costs. I last did DC training in 2006 and as far as I know the basic techniques and drills haven't changed, it's about stopping floods/fires as quickly as possible to keep the ship afloat. Anyone who's been through sea checks/WUPS will tell you that DCXs are built around major missile impacts, loss of compartments and personnel and then doing everything you can to save what's left of the ship.

DC seems like a bit of a joke. A lot like submarine rescue capability. What is going to be left of a warship after a missile or torpedo hit?