Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Samoa]

No arguments about the subs, but I've never agreed the Hunter can't carry more missiles, and recently news from BAE has vindicated me. Remove the multi mission space. Even if you add no Mk 41 VLS, a 13m x 21m (approx) space allows for a lot of deck mounted SM2's, ESSM's and NSM's. Just put an angled wall up for stealth on the sides, like the Taiwanese missile boat Tuo Chiang Class does.

As for the Arafura, you could argue it's the wrong ship, or you could say Australia needs more levels of ships, like the RN does, with Front end Type 26/45, light frigate Type 31, then the OPV RIver class.

In case you don't know, SM2's can be deck launched https://www.baesystems.com/en-media/uploadFile/20210813155115/1434614211149.pdf

The HCF hull form largely common to the T26 can accomodate an increased VLS payload. The model showing 96 VLS is a testament to that, and it isn’t just a marketing model, it’s underpinned by a comprehensive engineering design assessment right down to equipment allocations in revised compartments, variable missile payloads and a full build and cost impact assessment.

The HCF design baseline is fixed at 32 Strike length VLS, for one reason, and one reason only. It is what the Commonweatlh wanted. During the initial bid, BAE offered different VLS cell configurations and was keen to offer 48 VLS at the baseline offer to match the AWD variant, but the CoA assessment only wanted 32, and BAE was told that there are no bonus points for more….

Fast forward 5 years, and now it is made to look like the T26 selection was not appropriate because HCF hasn’t enough VLS cells. Go figure. BAE can offer a two variant build strategy supporting both a ASW frigate and DDG, with greater than 95% ship design and system commonality. But again, those in charge remain paralysed awaiting a further review of Naval capabilities.

 

[MickB]

The best navy in the world doesn’t do civilian patrol. It leaves that to the Coast Guard and it seems to manage it’s command training okay…

I take it you mean the USN, if so given some of the watchkeepping disasters of the last decade I suggest the training can be tweaked a little.

 

[spoz]

As a country, the US has rather more resources than Australia; and with (by most reckonings) a shorter coastline. Boarder Force has its own problems; for one, the position if it ever uses significant force is unclear. Previous studies of this issue, of which there have been many, have always come down against the idea of a separate coastguard.

 

[Armchair]

As a country, the US has rather more resources than Australia; and with (by most reckonings) a shorter coastline. Boarder Force has its own problems; for one, the position if it ever uses significant force is unclear. Previous studies of this issue, of which there have been many, have always come down against the idea of a separate coastguard.

Are mixed crews viable in your view? regular RAN command and significant force but crew drawn from other agencies (or a naval reserve or auxiliary) for as much of everything else as is viable. Redlands has raised the issue of limited population base in the north but fly in fly out is an option.

One other benefit of RAN training with patrol vessels is visits to friendly places (often with small harbours that are not suitable for FFGs and DDGs) within the region and building knowledge and ties. That knowledge and those ties can be invaluable in a conflict. Even an Armidale looks pretty impressive to a civilian close up.

 

[StingrayOZ]

As a country, the US has rather more resources than Australia; and with (by most reckonings) a shorter coastline. Boarder Force has its own problems; for one, the position if it ever uses significant force is unclear. Previous studies of this issue, of which there have been many, have always come down against the idea of a separate coastguard.

The US is very blessed, while it has perhaps a shorter(or similar) coastline if you look from afar, it has a huge number of navigable internal waterways. So much of the US agriculture and industry can be moved by its internal rivers, which creates a required domestic need for river based transport skills. This is complimentary to its marine capabilities from its still very significant, coasts, which are continuously populated. Most of Australia's population centers are near the coast, but coastal housing is exclusively for the idle rich, not working class. I'm not sure hitting up Mosman high school or North Sydney girls is going to flood the RAN with recruits. Same can be said for all capitals and most regional coastal cities.

I guess the question is where is the RAN people pipeline in the future? Why would 18-22 year olds want to sign up? Not sure NCIS Sydney is going to have as much as a halo effect as Seapatrol.

Ultimately I don't think borderforce/Coastguard by itself magically solves our recruitment, retention and training pipeline. But there are perhaps opportunities to do so. But there is also risk of cannibalizations.

I take it you mean the USN, if so given some of the watchkeepping disasters of the last decade I suggest the training can be tweaked a little.

There were multiple issues regarding this. But even the USN is having huge issues with fatigue and burnout and its training pipeline and retention.

NTSB Accident Report on Fatal 2017 USS John McCain Collision off Singapore - USNI News

The following is the National Transportation Safety Board maritime accident report, Collision between US Navy Destroyer John S McCain and Tanker Alnic MC Singapore Strait, 5 Miles Northeast of Horsburgh Lighthouse August 21, 2017. From the report On August 21, 2017, the US Navy destroyer John S...

news.usni.org

• The decision to transfer the location of thrust control on board the John S McCain while the vessel was in a congested waterway
• The lack of very high frequency radio communications between the vessels
• The automatic identification system data transmission policy for Navy vessels
• The procedures for the transfers of steering and thrust control on board the John S McCain
• The training of Navy bridge watchstanders
• The design of the destroyer’s Integrated Bridge and Navigation System
• Navy watchstanders’ fatigue
• Navy oversight of the John S McCain

The HCF design baseline is fixed at 32 Strike length VLS, for one reason, and one reason only. It is what the Commonweatlh wanted. During the initial bid, BAE offered different VLS cell configurations and was keen to offer 48 VLS at the baseline offer to match the AWD variant, but the CoA assessment only wanted 32, and BAE was told that there are no bonus points for more….

Fast forward 5 years, and now it is made to look like the T26 selection was not appropriate because HCF hasn’t enough VLS cells. Go figure. BAE can offer a two variant build strategy supporting both a ASW frigate and DDG, with greater than 95% ship design and system commonality. But again, those in charge remain paralysed awaiting a further review of Naval capabilities.

The T26 has issues with its selection, but while VLS is often discussed in forums, it is not one of the real issues with the Ty26 selection. The design was not shipyard ready for AU. That really isn't the blame of BAE. In hindsight what we should have done is perhaps built 2 more of the Hobart class and that would have given enough work to ASC to strengthen the workforce, it would have made the SME more viable in supporting them, the Hobarts could have been built with new versions of Aegis and Spy6, so could have covered the gap while the older hobarts were upgraded, we would have had more Air Defence capability, 6xFFG's would have been replaced by 5xAWD. There would be less pressure on the Hunter to have huge strike capability, and the build would have had more time to detail design, and there would be no delays.

But we didn't do this. One of the reasons was there was a bipartisan fight to stop the WA mafia from hijacking the Naval shipbuilding from SA. Pyne was flat out, in conjunction with the labor premier of SA to keep it where it is. Which is the logical place to build them, because we build the Hobarts there and spent billions tooling it up making it the center of large naval shipbuilding.

Previous parties had both not backed the 4th AWD, although I believe its fate was sealed under labor. If we had committed to a 4th, there would have been some sort of window into perhaps a 5th. If we knew what we knew now, we would have built 5 x Hobarts. 2 of a more updated design with AEGIS 10 and SPY6 probably.

If we had a Hobart delivered in 22-23 and one 23-24 we would be far less worried about Hunter. Hunter wouldn't have to be the mega messiah to save the RAN. We would actually have fairly robust AWD capability.

 

[BPFP]

Previous parties had both not backed the 4th AWD, although I believe its fate was sealed under labor. If we had committed to a 4th, there would have been some sort of window into perhaps a 5th. If we knew what we knew now, we would have built 5 x Hobarts. 2 of a more updated design with AEGIS 10 and SPY6 probably.

I recall a piece at the time in the Australian suggesting that Julia Gillard had offered defence leadership the option of a 4th F100 (along with I believe SPHs) and navy leadership turned it down - thinking ahead to SEA5000. Not sure how credible this is.

 

[hauritz]

As a country, the US has rather more resources than Australia; and with (by most reckonings) a shorter coastline. Boarder Force has its own problems; for one, the position if it ever uses significant force is unclear. Previous studies of this issue, of which there have been many, have always come down against the idea of a separate coastguard.

I also think a Coast Guard or an expanded Border Force would be pretty much just be more competition for the navy when it comes to recruitment since you will pretty much be drawing from the same candidate pool. It isn't likely to solve the real problem which is just finding the manpower to operate more ships.

 

[Reptilia]

With the Hobart upgrades
Spains F105 Cristobal Colon, could it be an an option? They do have F110 coming online from 2025-2029.

Could go down like this.. ‘If you buy Tasman class corvettes, we will give you the option to buy the F105…’
Not sure if you would push upgrades back a year, have F105 upgraded first, second or last.

 

[Volkodav]

I also think a Coast Guard or an expanded Border Force would be pretty much just be more competition for the navy when it comes to recruitment since you will pretty much be drawing from the same candidate pool. It isn't likely to solve the real problem which is just finding the manpower to operate more ships.

I actually wonder with the revelations coming out about Home Affairs in regards to their leadership and culture whether actually needs to be broken up, not expanded.

AFP are back where they belong under the AG and I'm wondering if other elements would fit better elsewhere.

Is Customs the best place for the PBs? What about other government functions with patrol and enforcement roles? Maybe there is a place for a pooled maritime, even contracted capability supported by an RAN cadre, with teams of specialists from other agencies deploying as required.

Instead of wanna be storm troopers, recruit proper Mariners to maintain and operate the vessels and facilities. Even introduce apprenticeships and traineeships for young Australians giving them genuine career skills and qualifications.

 

[John Fedup]

I would like to think the T26 selection is the best option for both Australia and Canada and I believe it is. Different fit outs may prove superior but most of the platform will be good allowing for future upgrades. Just get them in the water asap.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

There is an interview with Admiral Hammond in the latest Australian Defence Magazine where he makes some obvious but useful clarifying comments on what is meant by Tier One and Tier Two warships.

“An Air Warfare Destroyer like the Hobart class is a Tier One although I think it needs not just to be bristling with self-defence capability, it needs to have a lethal strike capability as well, which is what we’re working on with the Tomahawk program.“

”A Tier Two is more like a multi-purpose frigate similar to the Anzac-class frigates, something that can perform multiple roles. It’s our surface force in particular that flies the Australian flag across the Indo-Pacific in various international fora,”

“ADM: In its current configuration, would an Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel meet your definition of a Tier Two ship?

VADM HAMMOND: No. It’s a constabulary patrol boat, it’s not built for conflict, it doesn’t have a self-defence system. It would be useful for things like border protection missions in its current configuration,”

From the Source: Vice Admiral Mark Hammond - Australian Defence Magazine

While the RAN awaits the outcome of the surface combatant fleet review, the Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mark Hammond discusses the status, the strengths and the issues involving the force-in-being with...

www.australiandefence.com.au

I found this encouraging, with to me an implication that a Tier One would have VLS/SSM capability > Hobart, a Tier Two would have self-defence, decent range, and presumably be smiilar sized to Anzacs, and No, Arafuras are not combatants.

 

[Reptilia]

There is an interview with Admiral Hammond in the latest Australian Defence Magazine where he makes some obvious but useful clarifying comments on what is meant by Tier One and Tier Two warships.

“An Air Warfare Destroyer like the Hobart class is a Tier One although I think it needs not just to be bristling with self-defence capability, it needs to have a lethal strike capability as well, which is what we’re working on with the Tomahawk program.“

”A Tier Two is more like a multi-purpose frigate similar to the Anzac-class frigates, something that can perform multiple roles. It’s our surface force in particular that flies the Australian flag across the Indo-Pacific in various international fora,”

“ADM: In its current configuration, would an Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel meet your definition of a Tier Two ship?

VADM HAMMOND: No. It’s a constabulary patrol boat, it’s not built for conflict, it doesn’t have a self-defence system. It would be useful for things like border protection missions in its current configuration,”

From the Source: Vice Admiral Mark Hammond - Australian Defence Magazine

While the RAN awaits the outcome of the surface combatant fleet review, the Chief of Navy Vice Admiral Mark Hammond discusses the status, the strengths and the issues involving the force-in-being with...

www.australiandefence.com.au

I found this encouraging, with to me an implication that a Tier One would have VLS/SSM capability > Hobart, a Tier Two would have self-defence, decent range, and presumably be smiilar sized to Anzacs, and No, Arafuras are not combatants.

Anzac is 118m, 6,000nm at 18knts

Is 90m Anzac sized?
is 140m Anzac sized?

The 109m Tasman class. has nowhere near the range of an Anzac. It’s reference design has a 5,000nm at 15knts range, but with a much bigger load, less is expected.
The only 2 ships designs we have seen that are Close to Anzacs are Navantias 121m Alpha 5000 offering in which none exist or the 117m gibbs & cox offering in which none will exist until 2026.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With the Hobart upgrades
Spains F105 Cristobal Colon, could it be an an option? They do have F110 coming online from 2025-2029.

Could go down like this.. ‘If you buy Tasman class corvettes, we will give you the option to buy the F105…’
Not sure if you would push upgrades back a year, have F105 upgraded first, second or last.

It's not impossible to think about a deal like that. Even more bonkers, they could offer some or whole crew.

As form the range limitation of the Tasman class there was talk of building it bigger with more stores and fuel.

Navantia/spain will also sell you more aor or jss. Or rent you one, with crew. For money.

So the question is how big are our problems, and how much money do we want to spend.

 

[spoz]

I recall a piece at the time in the Australian suggesting that Julia Gillard had offered defence leadership the option of a 4th F100 (along with I believe SPHs) and navy leadership turned it down - thinking ahead to SEA5000. Not sure how credible this is.

No, quite the opposite. Defence tried for one but was knocked back by the (Rudd) government.

 

[BPFP]

No, quite the opposite. Defence tried for one but was knocked back by the (Rudd) government.

It was, but a 4th unit was canvassed by Stephen Smith prior to the 2013 defence white paper (along with more Super Hornets, not SPHs):

STEPHEN Smith has told his department to bring forward the promised new defence white paper so it can be released before next month's budget - along with plans to buy more Super Hornet fighter-bombers and a fourth powerful air warfare destroyer. (The Australian, 27 April 2013).

It didn't make it into the white paper and never went anywhere, but I recall some reports at the time indicating the Navy was not interested (I think actually because of manpower issues) - can't find those references, though.

 

[swerve]

Anzac is 118m, 6,000nm at 18knts

Is 90m Anzac sized?
is 140m Anzac sized?

The 109m Tasman class. has nowhere near the range of an Anzac. It’s reference design has a 5,000nm at 15knts range, but with a much bigger load, less is expected.
The only 2 ships designs we have seen that are Close to Anzacs are Navantias 121m Alpha 5000 offering in which none exist or the 117m gibbs & cox offering in which none will exist until 2026.

FTI (Ronarc'h) is 122m, 4500 tons full load, 5000nm at 15 knots. Similar, & first of class is in the water & fitting out. Expected to commission early next year. Standard fit has 2x8 Sylver VLS, hull & towed sonars, 4 face AESA main radar, etc. Perhaps it could lose something in favour of more fuel.

 

[Reptilia]

FTI (Ronarc'h) is 122m, 4500 tons full load, 5000nm at 15 knots. Similar, & first of class is in the water & fitting out. Expected to commission early next year. Standard fit has 2x8 Sylver VLS, hull & towed sonars, 4 face AESA main radar, etc. Perhaps it could lose something in favour of more fuel.

Not a bad shout, still think Tasman or Aus Light Frigate are the favourites.

Tasman class(Alpha 3000)
Designer/Builder - Navantia/Austal/Civmec
L - A109m (5 m longer than Al Jubail class)
W - A15m
T - A3,400+
MS - 25-27knts
CMS - SAAB 9LV
R - A4,500nm-5,000nm at 15knts, could be more if lengthened like StingrayOZ said
MG - 57mm
VLS - 16 (16SL, protruding from deck)
SSM - 16 nsm in 4 quad canisters
ASW - 2 x triple torpedo launcher, optional Hull sonar, Towed array(Captas 4C)
SeaS - <6
H - 1 x Seahawk
Protection - 1 x CIWS above hangar, 2-4 RWS, 2 x DL
Crew - A100-110 off the reference.
Propulsion - CODAD
Probably could begin build before 2026, probably depends on what’s happening with the Arafura class.


Aus Light Frigate (Mini Constellation), basically a redesign of the PF 4921 a decade later with the stern ramp chopped off, based off the legend class cutter by HII.
Designer/Builder - Gibbs & Cox/TBD
L - A117m
W - A16m
T - A3,600+
MS - 30knts+
CMS - SAAB 9LV/Aegis
R - 8,000nm at 12knts in reference to the PF 4921, although that design was 127m. Probably not too different with new propulsion.
MG - None on 32 cell offer, but can if only just 16 forward.
VLS - 32 (16T+16SL) or 16 (16SL)
SSM - 24 nsm in 6 quad canisters or 12-16 lrasm? in 3-4 quad canisters
ASW - 2 x triple torpedo launcher, optional hull sonar, Towed array
SeaS - <5+
H - 1 x Seahawk, 1 x small Drone
Protection - 1 x CIWS above hangar, 2-6 RWS 30mm, 2 DL
Crew - A90-110 (‘Crew size less than 100’)
Propulsion - CODLAG (Quiter with electric drive for ASW patrol, more efficient at cruising speed) GE LM2500+ turbines
Build would not begin until Taiwanese FOC tested thoroughly, 2028?
Makes alot of sense if we see Constellation class rotating through Aus with common parts.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Anzac is 118m, 6,000nm at 18knts

Is 90m Anzac sized?
is 140m Anzac sized?

The 109m Tasman class. has nowhere near the range of an Anzac. It’s reference design has a 5,000nm at 15knts range, but with a much bigger load, less is expected.
The only 2 ships designs we have seen that are Close to Anzacs are Navantias 121m Alpha 5000 offering in which none exist or the 117m gibbs & cox offering in which none will exist until 2026.

I won’t try to predict what the RAN will get for the Tier Two warship. In the current environment I think that will also depend on the cost / financial offer, which we don’t know. However I think there are two things we can rule out.

The first is a simple makeshift addition to Arafuras with containered weapons like Iron Dome strapped to the deck. That won’t meet Hammond’s criteria. The second is the Luerssen CV90 Bulgarian small corvette design, which is obviously shorter ranged and a lot less able to “show the flag” regionally than an Anzac.

I think we can assume the Anzacs won’t be replaced by anything less capable than an updated Anzac.

 

[hauritz]

The other elephant in the room is manning any new vessels. It isn't helped that we are stuggling to find the manpower to crew what we already have. According to the Australian the target for ADF personel this year was 62,000 personel. We ended up with 58,642 which actually contracted by 1,161 since last year. This isn't a problem that can be fixed quickly.

We already have HMAS Anzac on a hard stand primarily because of crew shortages and I doubt it will ever go to sea again. The government has so far funded three of these vessels to be upgraded and it wouldn't surprise me if that is all we end up with. Not only are the ANZACs old but I think it is manning issues that will see them withdrawn in the end. New build ships that require half the crew and offer around the same capability are a way better proposition.

 

[Armchair]

The other elephant in the room is manning any new vessels. It isn't helped that we are stuggling to find the manpower to crew what we already have. According to the Australian the target for ADF personel this year was 62,000 personel. We ended up with 58,642 which actually contracted by 1,161 since last year. This isn't a problem that can be fixed quickly.

We already have HMAS Anzac on a hard stand primarily because of crew shortages and I doubt it will ever go to sea again. The government has so far funded three of these vessels to be upgraded and it wouldn't surprise me if that is all we end up with. Not only are the ANZACs old but I think it is manning issues that will see them withdrawn in the end. New build ships that require half the crew and offer around the same capability are a way better proposition.

Other side of the problem raised by posters such as Volkodav are that there are insufficient vessels at sea for specialists to maintain qualifications. New ships will almost certainly share many systems with ANZACs so perhaps identifying one or more as training vessels is a compromise.