Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ADMk2]

I would anticipate the minimum time to get a new design built and into service is actually a bit more than a three-year best case scenario, with two major stumbling blocks.

The first would be how long between when some of the advanced systems might get ordered and when they would be delivered ready for installation aboard a hull under construction or fitting out? Consider for instance the timeline for SEA 1300, which selected NSM as the AShM replacement for Harpoon in RAN service. This selection was made last year, with the contract signed at the beginning of this year, with first deliveries expect to start some time in 2024. I could be mistaken, but I would imagine that acquiring and integrating a new AShM would be a bit faster and easier than having new sensor modules, work stations and then the combat data system built, tested and integrated. Even if the systems are readily available for export orders, they would still need to be built since I highly doubt that any of the manufacturers have such systems sitting in warehouses awaiting sale.

Related to the above, if any such build was to feature new to Australia kit, time would also need to be allocated to establishing the appropriate maintenance and supply chains to keep the new kit functional. Furthermore, there would also need to be time allotted to training personnel on the new systems and building experience with maintaining and operating them. IMO this would be particularly true if new vessels were fitted with something other than the 9LV CMS that the RAN has adopted was fitted, as how things would display to operators would likely be different from what they are used to, as well as how the operator would interact with a workstation and the CMS to achieve an outcome.

One minor alteration - the timeline for NSM is to have ‘ALL’ RAN major surface combatants fitted with it before 2024 concludes.

Given that integration has to go across 2 different classes and 2 different combat systems simultaneously in a joint effort between RAN, DSTO, Raytheon, LockMart, SAAB and Kongsberg (off the top of my head, there may well be more involved…) I personally find that pretty darn impressive.

 

[Redlands18]

I don’t often comment here but I can answer this one.

If Civmec is as good as the best foreign yards, you’re looking at 2 years to build a ~3,000 ton light frigate, from first steel cut to first sea trials. Add ~8 months from contract signing to start of build, and ~4 months for builders trials and delivery.

So total ~ 3 years from contract signing. That’s the best case, using an off-the-shelf design already integrated with US weapons (luckily ESSM, NSM, RAM, MH-60 are common on the export market) and European sensors (Thales sonars & radars most likely).

Not sure that customizing with the RAN’s preferred radar (CEAFAR) and combat system (Saab 9LV) would be realistic… that would add delays and introduce risk.

Assuming the review is finalized in Q3 23, a program decision made in Q4, an accelerated selection process run in Q1-Q2 24, contract negotiations finalized in Q3 24 (all wildly optimistic assumptions) that puts your earliest delivery towards the tail end of 2027, with entry in service in 2028.

To end on a slightly more optimistic note, I do believe you can get solid all-domain capability and decent endurance on a ~3,000-3,500 ton hull, with fairly minor hull plugs needed to the existing designs from Damen/ Fincantieri/ Naval Group/ TKMS (which are all very modular) to increase fuel bunkerage and VLS capacity to fit 32 ESSM (+21 RAM) which would be quite sufficient for AA defence.

Saab 9LV would be the bare minimum CMS the RAN would want fitted, its fitted to every major RAN warship and a Saab 9LV interface is being developed for fitting to the Hunters and to be retrofitted to the Hobarts. Even the Arafura's are getting the Saab 9LV.

 

[spoz]

It would take a lot longer than 8 months to go from contract signature to cut steel, even if it is an off the shelf digital design in English. Importing the design to the ship yard and productionising it there would take considerably longer than that. Then there is the selection process. Plus, as has been previously noted, combat system installation, set to work and grooming is the long pole in this tent, not steel bashing - and that can’t start till most of the steelbashing is done. Then there is the lead time on the supply chain - propellers and shafting are taking well over two years atm I believe (there are only a small number of suppliers and they build to order) - and that’s once the specs for the items have been developed and the subs let. A minimum of about 5 years for a first of class is not unreasonable.

 

[hauritz]

The C90 will be a terrible platform for the RAN. Especially if it comes at the expense of a Hunter (or equivalent FFG). The 16 cell VLS is for MiCA missiles. Not quad packed ESSM. If you start packing it with weapons and sophisticated sensors you are eating into range.

If we are looking for an alternative or cheaper supplement to Hunter, we need to look at the Arrowhead 140. Keep it simple and pull through the systems, sensors and weapons from our modernised ANZAC frigates. No need to put AEGIS on it. CEAFAR and existing SAAB combat system should suffice. ESSM block 2 quad packed and NSM. Get the kiwis on board if they are keen and call it a day.

The C90 is fine for the Black Sea and Bulgaria but it won’t cut it for our area of operations. It’s crew is not much less than an Arrowhead so it is waste of our limited manpower.

We really haven’t got many options, at least not in the short term.

We still need constabulary vessels and we need to replace the MCVs and Hydros. A bigger beefier version of the OPV 80, something like the C90 might still be a better option than a frigate for those roles.

Also you would still need time to select and set up production of any proper tier 2 frigate. Shutting down the OPV production line until that new design is ready, once again throwing the local shipbuilding industry under the bus, would not be acceptable.

In my own mind I see the best way of going forward would be to continue building OPVs but look at going to something like the C-90. Continue building the Hunter class in Adelaide and start the process for selecting a proper Tier 2 design that will built during the 2030s.

Frankly once the Hunter production line is up and running I would be pretty hesitant about shutting it down and starting over with another ship design. I would prefer any small frigate be built in WA and SA should stick with building major vessels.

 

[H_K]

The ~3 year timelines I’m referring to have been achieved with real-world builds.

However like I said those would be the best case scenario, building with a sense of urgency and avoiding complexity, i.e. keeping to an off-the-shelf design, combat system etc. Any delays at any point in the supply chain, design modifications, switching out the combat system, in Civmec’s ability to start work etc would delay those timelines.

So yes I wouldn’t be surprised if 5 years was more realistic for the kind of build that the RAN would have in mind… but that means no new ships in the water this side of 2030. Or if speed is still critical, leaving Lurssen’s C90 corvette as the only (rather unappealing) alternative.

 

[Stampede]

The ~3 year timelines I’m referring to have been achieved with real-world builds.

However like I said those would be the best case scenario, building with a sense of urgency and avoiding complexity, i.e. keeping to an off-the-shelf design, combat system etc. Any delays at any point in the supply chain, design modifications, switching out the combat system, in Civmec’s ability to start work etc would delay those timelines.

So yes I wouldn’t be surprised if 5 years was more realistic for the kind of build that the RAN would have in mind… but that means no new ships in the water this side of 2030. Or if speed is still critical, leaving Lurssen’s C90 corvette as the only (rather unappealing) alternative.

So this begs the question is a " rather unappealing alternative" the best way forward?

I guess the answer is what we can achieve, versus what we want, versus our perception of threat.

I still feel excellence is the enemy of good.
Good may in fact be an unappealing alternative!

Anyway thanks everyone for your feed back and keeping the information flow without to many emotions.
Much appreciated.

This OPV / corvette subject is often repetitive but each time some more facts come forward.
Answers to the future of the OPV, MCM, Survey Tier 2 somethings will no doubt be apart of the Naval review due hopefully next month.

We are not far away.



Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

So this begs the question is a " rather unappealing alternative" the best way forward?

I guess the answer is what we can achieve, versus what we want, versus our perception of threat.

I still feel excellence is the enemy of good.
Good may in fact be an unappealing alternative!

Anyway thanks everyone for your feed back and keeping the information flow without to many emotions.
Much appreciated.

This OPV / corvette subject is often repetitive but each time some more facts come forward.
Answers to the future of the OPV, MCM, Survey Tier 2 somethings will no doubt be apart of the Naval review due hopefully next month.

We are not far away.



Cheers S

Couldn’t agree more. Years of procrastination have finally run down the clock. What we have now are a bunch of bad and less bad options. We no longer have the luxury of time. We need to look at what can realistically be achieved in 5 years.

What we need now are interim, transitional solutions that will hold us over until better solutions can be found much further down the track.

The right balance of tier one and tier two ships. The right mix of ASW, AWD and GP vessels. The role of unmanned vessels. The requirement to support littoral operations. The integration of SSNs. The future of existing assets such as the Canberras … these are complex issues that aren’t going to be resolved when the navy review is completed by the end of September.

 

[Morgo]

Couldn’t agree more. Years of procrastination have finally run down the clock. What we have now are a bunch of bad and less bad options. We no longer have the luxury of time. We need to look at what can realistically be achieved in 5 years.

What we need now are interim, transitional solutions that will hold us over until better solutions can be found much further down the track.

The right balance of tier one and tier two ships. The right mix of ASW, AWD and GP vessels. The role of unmanned vessels. The requirement to support littoral operations. The integration of SSNs. The future of existing assets such as the Canberras … these are complex issues that aren’t going to be resolved when the navy review is completed by the end of September.

Are you sure? I thought that was the point of the surface review?

 

[OldTex]

There are almost as many expectations of what the surface fleet review will deliver when it is released as there are fish in the sea. If it recommends a future fleet structure and the relevant capabilities required of the various vessels then that will provide much needed clarity and guidance. Whether that structure and the recommended capabilities are delivered over time will be a matter for the CoA and the government. It may be that existing projects will be scaled back to free up some funding and shipbuilding capacity for new projects to deliver the vessels identified as being the future for the fleet. Those future vessels will need to be delivered in the numbers recommended, which means that the desire to over specify them must be resisted just as the desire to under provide or under specify them must also be resisted.

 

[Flexson]

For a reality check on what can be achieved in X number of years, take Arafura as an example. A 1600 tonne, supposedly off the shelf design, without complex weapon systems, built closer to commercial standards and we are approaching 5 years since steel cutting and Navy doesn't have her yet.

We expect something heavier, with teeth and survivable in less time???

 

[Volkodav]

Thinking about the ANZACs.

They were larger than required, fitted for but not with many systems, and roundly criticised for this, but had a good core combat system that, along with their size, facilitated extensive capability upgrades.

They were built in useful numbers, the extended build introducing economies of scale Australian shipbuilding had never seen before.

Their failings? To be honest, not much.

In fact if anything the problem was they were large enough and good enough that our moronic political class could pretend they were capable enough to delay, then cancel plans to maintain a suffient number larger, more capable ships.

Now various individuals and groups are seriously suggesting we cancel an indeterminate number of Hunters, which are significantly more capable than the ANZACs, and replace them with tarted up OPVs that are significantly inferior to the ANZACs.

At very very best, we seem to be talking about a like for like replacement for the ANZACs at the expense of more capable, high end ships. That is IMHO extremely flawed thinking.

Personally I believe the Hunters should proceed and numbers should only be cut if, after a couple of batches, a larger, more capable design is required.

There should be no tarted up OPVs, ever!

If a second tier is required, it should be, like the ANZACs, built to warship standards, larger than required for their initial intended role and outfit. They should be built in sufficient numbers to gain economies of scale during the build. Rather than save money through going for smaller cheaper, less survivable platforms, and arming them to the teeth, we should build bigger, more survivable, higher performance, platforms, fitted for and not with.

As for a third tier, again, tarted up OPVs, no way, not ever. If money, number of trained personnel, etc. is too limited to permit appropriately capable and survivable small combatants to be acquired in suffient numbers, then these ships should be either patrol boats, and OPVs, not intended to be up armed, or proper corvettes or light frigates (warship platforms), fitted for but not with.

Yes I am suggesting for but not with. It gives navies bigger, better more survivable platforms that can be extensively upgraded when required. The majors should still have all the required capabilities, but size, performance, survivability and potential are IMO more critical for second, third fourth or whatever tier combatants.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thinking about the ANZACs.

They were larger than required, fitted for but not with many systems, and roundly criticised for this, but had a good core combat system that, along with their size, facilitated extensive capability upgrades.

They were built in useful numbers, the extended build introducing economies of scale Australian shipbuilding had never seen before.

Their failings? To be honest, not much.

In fact if anything the problem was they were large enough and good enough that our moronic political class could pretend they were capable enough to delay, then cancel plans to maintain a suffient number larger, more capable ships.

Now various individuals and groups are seriously suggesting we cancel an indeterminate number of Hunters, which are significantly more capable than the ANZACs, and replace them with tarted up OPVs that are significantly inferior to the ANZACs.

At very very best, we seem to be talking about a like for like replacement for the ANZACs at the expense of more capable, high end ships. That is IMHO extremely flawed thinking.

Personally I believe the Hunters should proceed and numbers should only be cut if, after a couple of batches, a larger, more capable design is required.

There should be no tarted up OPVs, ever!

If a second tier is required, it should be, like the ANZACs, built to warship standards, larger than required for their initial intended role and outfit. They should be built in sufficient numbers to gain economies of scale during the build. Rather than save money through going for smaller cheaper, less survivable platforms, and arming them to the teeth, we should build bigger, more survivable, higher performance, platforms, fitted for and not with.

As for a third tier, again, tarted up OPVs, no way, not ever. If money, number of trained personnel, etc. is too limited to permit appropriately capable and survivable small combatants to be acquired in suffient numbers, then these ships should be either patrol boats, and OPVs, not intended to be up armed, or proper corvettes or light frigates (warship platforms), fitted for but not with.

Yes I am suggesting for but not with. It gives navies bigger, better more survivable platforms that can be extensively upgraded when required. The majors should still have all the required capabilities, but size, performance, survivability and potential are IMO more critical for second, third fourth or whatever tier combatants.

Me being me, there is one potential path which could make me consider reducing the number of Hunter-class FFG's ordered/built acceptable. This situation would be where the order was reduced to no less than two batches of three vessels each, with an actual build programme for the Hobart-class replacement area air defence ships launching immediately after the end of the Hunter-class build with long-lead items having already been ordered and first steel, even if only of prototype blocks, being cut not long afterwards. Getting only a half-dozen Hunter-class frigates in RAN service would be an acceptable tradeoff if it enabled an earlier in-service date for what will replace the Hobart-class DDG's, provided of course that the replacement design is not size, space and weight/displacement constrained like the Hobart-class has turned out to be.

As for the Arafura-class OPV's, by all means, let them be OPV's. It would be acceptable if there were modest efforts to increase the capabilities, specifically those which could increase the self-defence and survivability of the vessels (like adopting and fitting a small calibre, rapid fire dual-purpose gun, and/or decoys and countermeasures like Nulka). I am more open to the idea of an OPV90-derivative hull/design for the Huon-class MHC MCM replacements, provided the design has warship standards for DC and survivability and an increased armament focused on protecting the vessel itself. I do not see much point in fitting a few AShM to what should essentially be a mine hunter/sweeper, but there would be value in fitting an air self-defence capability via RAM, SeaCeptor or ESSM or the like. This could reduce the dependence of the class on escorts to transit to, from, or operate in threatened areas. IMO this was not as much of a concern for the Huon-class MHC due at least in part because they were such small, slow vessels. IIRC their transit speeds were ~10 kts so that RAN and allied forces were likely to have already contained threats in an area, with the MHC's just arriving (much later...) to clean up/neutralize/sanitize potential minefields.

 

[hauritz]

I guess this is what the Chinese envisage as a Tier 2 warship going into the late 20s.

Type 054A frigate - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Let’s not even pretend a large OPV or corvette could match it. In my mind something like a C90
or perhaps even just an upgunned Arafura really doesn’t come close to what I would consider a Tier 2 combatant.

The best approach might be to just consider any future builds or variants of the Arafuras for what they are upgunned OPVs with better protection.
Actually the hints are already there that this might be what is planned. Ultimately we could just literally get the Arafura with a better gun and something like C-Dome.

Australia Considering Modular C-Dome For Arafura OPVs - Naval News

The Royal Australian Navy is in talks to procure a containerized variant of Rafael's C-Dome to increase the firepower of its future OPVs.

www.navalnews.com

A proper Tier two would follow but probably not until the 2030s.

Personally I would see nothing less than a ship around the size and capability of the Type 31 as being my baseline Tier two warship.

As for the Hunter class I would hope they would go ahead as planned. I actually like the idea of two frigate production lines in competition with each other. It keeps them honest. I have no idea how large a surface fleet the navy will be able to sustain going into the 2040s but it might be enough to keep two seperate ship yards in production.

 

[At lakes]

A lot of chatter regarding the MMPV90 or C90. The Bulgarians have just launched one and it appears on the surface to be suitable for the Black Sea and maybe around the Med, but here is Australia in my unqualified opinion its to small and very short on range.

Bulgaria's First Modern Corvette Launched by Local Shipyard - Naval News

The first of two MMPV 90 corvettes for the Bulgarian Navy was launched at the MTG Dolphin Shipyard in Varna.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Scott Elaurant]

An ASPI article by retired Adm David Shackleton today outlines the problems of a too small navy with too few ships and too few crews. Shackleton advocates simplification and more numbers, so converting from Hunter production to more (3+9?) Hobart production and converting Luerssen OPV production to Corvette production (presumably C90s).

The future of the RAN’s surface combatant force | The Strategist

Defence Minister Richard Marles will soon receive a report from Admiral William Hilarides on the future of the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet. The additional analysis was initiated by the authors of the defence strategic ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I assume this would have to be based on Navantia updating the Hobart design for the new hulls to be built to a “Batch 2” design with intended updates such as AEGIS baseline 9, Tomahawks etc. If that occurred, Hobart AWD construction started quickly, and the RAN ended up with 12 Hobarts and 6 C90 corvettes (i.e. Hobart for Hunter substitution not a cut), I’d be fine with that.

The first three Hobarts would still need to be upgraded as planned, but this could be done after the first three “batch 2” Hobarts and corvettes were built, which I presume would reduce the post 2028 gap risk posters here have raised.

I also assume that all these ships would still be built in Australia either Adelaide (Hobarts) or Perth (corvettes + ASC backup if needed). Economies of scale could be achieved with production and it would simplify maintenance. I assume each Hobart would still have an SH60 and towed array sonar, hence adequate for ASW. But Shackleton makes the point that ASW is not now the primary concern.

 

[ADMk2]

A lot of chatter regarding the MMPV90 or C90. The Bulgarians have just launched one and it appears on the surface to be suitable for the Black Sea and maybe around the Med, but here is Australia in my unqualified opinion its to small and very short on range.

Bulgaria's First Modern Corvette Launched by Local Shipyard - Naval News

The first of two MMPV 90 corvettes for the Bulgarian Navy was launched at the MTG Dolphin Shipyard in Varna.

www.navalnews.com

And yet in those very same waters, we are intending to operate smaller, slower, lower displacement OPV’s... One is 90m and 2300t and is “too small” and the other is 80m and 1600t and will be operated by us?

Strange.

 

[Volkodav]

And yet in those very same waters, we are intending to operate smaller, slower, lower displacement OPV’s... One is 90m and 2300t and is “too small” and the other is 80m and 1600t and will be operated by us?

Strange.

The thing is the arafuras are not being spoken of as an alternative to the Hunters. I'm happy to have OPVs instead of patrol boats but not armed opvs instead of frigates.

 

[ASSAIL]

An ASPI article by retired Adm David Shackleton today outlines the problems of a too small navy with too few ships and too few crews. Shackleton advocates simplification and more numbers, so converting from Hunter production to more (3+9?) Hobart production and converting Luerssen OPV production to Corvette production (presumably C90s).

The future of the RAN’s surface combatant force | The Strategist

Defence Minister Richard Marles will soon receive a report from Admiral William Hilarides on the future of the Royal Australian Navy’s surface fleet. The additional analysis was initiated by the authors of the defence strategic ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

I assume this would have to be based on Navantia updating the Hobart design for the new hulls to be built to a “Batch 2” design with intended updates such as AEGIS baseline 9, Tomahawks etc. If that occurred, Hobart AWD construction started quickly, and the RAN ended up with 12 Hobarts and 6 C90 corvettes (i.e. Hobart for Hunter substitution not a cut), I’d be fine with that.

The first three Hobarts would still need to be upgraded as planned, but this could be done after the first three “batch 2” Hobarts and corvettes were built, which I presume would reduce the post 2028 gap risk posters here have raised.

I also assume that all these ships would still be built in Australia either Adelaide (Hobarts) or Perth (corvettes + ASC backup if needed). Economies of scale could be achieved with production and it would simplify maintenance. I assume each Hobart would still have an SH60 and towed array sonar, hence adequate for ASW. But Shackleton makes the point that ASW is not now the primary concern.

VADM Shackleton has dismissed ASW for his entire career, he speaks with the zealotry of a true above surface warfare specialist.
A small force needs balance and although the missile age tips that balance in his favour “escorting” must include proficiency in ASW weapons and tactics.
The Hunters’ configuration has not yet been settled, they were always to be “Batch” built and that may well mean that batches 2 and 3 may be more heavily armed while still maintaining their core ASW capability.
The good Admiral is no casual observer but in this article:he is too impatient.

 

[knightrider4]

The thing is the arafuras are not being spoken of as an alternative to the Hunters. I'm happy to have OPVs instead of patrol boats but not armed opvs instead of frigates.

Unfortunately I think that we will end with fewer MFU and more smaller less capable vessels simply because its cheap and for no other reason than that.

 

[Redlands18]

VADM Shackleton has dismissed ASW for his entire career, he speaks with the zealotry of a true above surface warfare specialist.
A small force needs balance and although the missile age tips that balance in his favour “escorting” must include proficiency in ASW weapons and tactics.
The Hunters’ configuration has not yet been settled, they were always to be “Batch” built and that may well mean that batches 2 and 3 may be more heavily armed while still maintaining their core ASW capability.
The good Admiral is no casual observer but in this article:he is too impatient.

How can anyone put the Hobarts and Hunters in the same tier anyway, as an AWD the Hobarts are lacking in quantity of firepower compared to all AWDs being built around the world today, so if you are going to use a Tier system to judge warships, then they are a Tier 2 AWD. The Hunters are going to be one of the largest most capable ASW Frigates afloat, they should be put in the Tier 1 ASW Frigate bracket. Where does the Anzacs belong, they are now a very capable Light Frigate, amongst the most capable in its class?