Ok so entirely an assumption, nothing based on a fact.... However of the two classes the Mogami's/New FFM are replacing the Asagiri class destroyer has the same 6,000nm range of our Anzac's and 2 knots faster... Japan isn't exactly in the habit of going backwards in the capabilities of what they replace.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
When considering what should be selected to replace the ANZAC the missing piece of the puzzle could be the optionally crewed vessels. Marles himself has said that while these vessels could operated without crews Australia would in fact be operating them with crews.
Very little is known about when we can expect to see these vessels in service, how big the crews will be, or what capabilities they will possess. What we do know is that we will be piggy backing off the US program. Like Australia it seems the plan is to use this ship with a bridge crew and it looks like it is expected to have at least a 30 day endurance.
The precise role of this ship isn’t known but it sounds like it could be configured for a range of missions.
Whether this ship could be considered as a tier two warship or as a force enabler is up for debate. How soon we see these in service is an unknown as is how effective they will be.
Australia seem to be gambling on this technology and frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if it entered service within ten years. That Austal is experimenting with the concept using modified, decommissioned Armidales would suggest the platform itself won’t need to that sophisticated.
It seems to be a gamble but frankly everything in the review is a gamble. Not extending the service life of the ANZACs in a gamble, rushing tier two ships into service is a gamble, the lack of urgency in accelerating production of the Hunters is gamble and certainly optionally crewed warships is a gamble.
The hope seems to be that if enough dice are rolled then something might come off.
www.navalnews.com
Very little is known about when we can expect to see these vessels in service, how big the crews will be, or what capabilities they will possess. What we do know is that we will be piggy backing off the US program. Like Australia it seems the plan is to use this ship with a bridge crew and it looks like it is expected to have at least a 30 day endurance.
The precise role of this ship isn’t known but it sounds like it could be configured for a range of missions.
Whether this ship could be considered as a tier two warship or as a force enabler is up for debate. How soon we see these in service is an unknown as is how effective they will be.
Australia seem to be gambling on this technology and frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if it entered service within ten years. That Austal is experimenting with the concept using modified, decommissioned Armidales would suggest the platform itself won’t need to that sophisticated.
It seems to be a gamble but frankly everything in the review is a gamble. Not extending the service life of the ANZACs in a gamble, rushing tier two ships into service is a gamble, the lack of urgency in accelerating production of the Hunters is gamble and certainly optionally crewed warships is a gamble.
The hope seems to be that if enough dice are rolled then something might come off.
Second Vendor Clears U.S. Navy LUSV Milestone - Naval News
The U.S. Navy is getting one step closer to fielding LUSV as vendors get closer to clearing propulsion endurance tests
www.navalnews.com
It's suprisingly hard to find a schedule for the Type 31 delivery from Babcock, however I did find a tweet from James Cartlidge (UK Minister for Defence Procurement) stating Venturer to be ready for operations in 2027 and all five ships delivered by end 2028 (June 2023). Other news articles indicate that Venturer is on schedule for delivery in 2025, so while this seems very optimistic, it also appears to be on track.
Venturer's keel was laid in April 2022, suggesting a three year build, and on the basis they assemble multiple ships simultaneously (which they do), approximately a yearly drumbeat (or less) for delivery.
On that reasoning one would think their yard becomes available from 2026/2027 for new builds, meaning 2029 for delivery of the first hull, and 2032 odd for the third. It's probably faster if build excludes combat systems. So it aligns with the GP frigate timeframes, but is not quicker.
I suspect it would be possible to reuse ANZAC class combat equipment as it has been kept up to date and well maintained. To the best of my knowledge we have never reused equipment from an old class to a new class, so there is no precedent.
I would suggest some items are easier to reuse than others, being the main gun and VLS. They are largely mechanical and haven't had a hard life. I'm not so sure about 9LV as it would be approaching a technology refresh by this time, so likely on the edge of becomming unsupportable/obsolete. Same for the ceafar, and they would likely have a new better version by this time.
In regards to Babcock becoming a contender. I wouldn't say never, but I don't see them suddenly emerging as a candidate. The review would have assessed the Arrowhead 140 and various derivatives in service, and rulled it out as an exemplar for a reason. What that reason is, is not clear and has not been announced. Maybe it is outside the weight range considered (its larger than all the exemplars) or maybe its something else, such as lesser ASW capability. I don't know.
VanguardWhen considering what should be selected to replace the ANZAC the missing piece of the puzzle could be the optionally crewed vessels. Marles himself has said that while these vessels could operated without crews Australia would in fact be operating them with crews.
Very little is known about when we can expect to see these vessels in service, how big the crews will be, or what capabilities they will possess. What we do know is that we will be piggy backing off the US program. Like Australia it seems the plan is to use this ship with a bridge crew and it looks like it is expected to have at least a 30 day endurance.
The precise role of this ship isn’t known but it sounds like it could be configured for a range of missions.
Whether this ship could be considered as a tier two warship or as a force enabler is up for debate. How soon we see these in service is an unknown as is how effective they will be.
Australia seem to be gambling on this technology and frankly it wouldn’t surprise me if it entered service within ten years. That Austal is experimenting with the concept using modified, decommissioned Armidales would suggest the platform itself won’t need to that sophisticated.
It seems to be a gamble but frankly everything in the review is a gamble. Not extending the service life of the ANZACs in a gamble, rushing tier two ships into service is a gamble, the lack of urgency in accelerating production of the Hunters is gamble and certainly optionally crewed warships is a gamble.
The hope seems to be that if enough dice are rolled then something might come off.
Second Vendor Clears U.S. Navy LUSV Milestone - Naval News
The U.S. Navy is getting one step closer to fielding LUSV as vendors get closer to clearing propulsion endurance tests
This vessel was launched in Jan as the latest actual experimental ship. It was made by Austal US. It will be interesting to see how it develops.
I would have though a crew is very limited, such as a bridge crew, so less than 20 people.
To your point is it a Tier 2 or a force enabler, valid question. My understanding is its designed to only operate with other ships and will not have the capacity to operate independently, so force enabler is perhaps a better description.
wonder how a maintenance crew could board one quickly in case of a systems failure underway. maybe it needs a helo pad?
One would guess a landing pad for helicopters and a steel beach or an easy access point for RHIBs to connect to the vessel.
As a "maritime missile truck" this optional crewed vessel is probably not to complicated a beast compared to the frigates and destroyers they compliment.
A hull form of such a size and weight to carry a 32 sized VLS.
An engine with fuel bunkerage to propel the vessel at task force speeds and range.
A bridge and and accomodation for crew of around 20 to 30 ( command and some basic support crew)
As an optional crewed vessel I'd guess it is staffed when operating independently of other fleet assets in permissive environments.
The rest of the time it's uncrewed.
That's my speculative take on the concept and expectation.
While it is an interesting concept, I still feel it will take some time for it to be an actively deployable unit within the RAN.
Still feel we should look at other options to cover from now out to the next 6 to 8 years.
Cheers S
In industry first, Mitsubishi Electric secures defense deal with Australia
The deal taps the company’s know-how in electronic and optical systems.
www.japantimes.co.jp
With closer defence ties between Australia and Japan.
Potential for CEA(AUS) + Unicorn NORA 50 antenna/360 surveillance camera(JPN) combo?
Japan has already offered the Unicorn to India.
Inside the CIC, the 360d display using the cameras at the bottom of the antenna. 1.30 into the video.
Last edited:
I'm not so sure the LOCSV concept is that far away or speculative. Lets strip it down a bit.
As you said, at its core, its a powered barge. An existing platform like an offshore supply tender can perform this function. The US have already done this with the first two prototypes Ranger and Mariner. Supply tenders have small crews of about 10-15 people, are very stable in all weather conditions and can take big heavy loads. Some have good range as well, depending on the type.
It has a remote weapons operation. Aegis/CEC systems already do this. We have this with the Hobarts. The new Virtual Aegis is basically this in a suitcase, so easy to retrofit, and its antenna should fit on a modified mast. My understanding (and I could be wrong) is that Link 16 can also provide a remote fire control, just more rudimentary. Remember target acquisition and tracking, and missile vectoring is all done by another platform.
It has a missile holder/launcher. The mk41 VLS is standard and there are reasonable proposals to containerise it. The one I saw online (bae I think) is a 30 foot shipping container with a 4 cell unit. 8 of these provides 32 cells. They pop up when needed, and otherwise fit on any platform that can hold a container (no need to modify to install). Alternatively bae are marketing an angled deck mounted VLS called the adaptable deck launched system. Missiles like NSM already fit in deck mounted cannisters, that bolt into place. I would suspect that the requisite control systems also come in a container and sit next to the launchers. All this needs is a stable ship with a flat deck, that can take a lot of top weight.
Putting all this together, a commandeered supply tender with a good sized deck, with a combination of containerised/deck launched mk41 and NSM cannisters, and a virtual Aegis/CEC/weapon control package (also containerised), provides an auxiliary missile platform. We could do all of this with existing technology and equipment and attach it to a Hobart tomorrow (metaphorically speaking). It's crewed, so navigation and maintenance is managed traditionally but with minimal staff.
So the next step is autonomous navigation. This is a harder part that is not quite ready. The technology for this is however available, the US Sea Hawk and Sea Hunter do this at the moment, albeit as prototype platforms. It also looks like we have our own trials with a converted Armidale. I would expect this to mature over the next few years reasonably quickly
The last part is reliability. Making a platform that can go 30-60 days without intervention will in my view take some time to proove. There is work on this front however.
My point is, we could have an operational missile barge with a low crew requirement fairly quickly if we wanted. This could transition to an autonomous uncrewed platform later on.
I'm not sure this will eventuate, however I think it is worthwhile discussing it when assessing the viability of the concept.
Last edited:
I have read they will have a helipad and the goal is to operate unmanned for the majority of the time and then be crewed when refueling and entering or leaving harbour.
I would think this would also include anytime it is operating in constricted waters or in close proximity to other vessels.
Last edited:
This leads to another question, will the temp crew for the LOCSV be part of the motherships regular crew or an additional attachment similar to flight crews and maintainers for Helos.
I have tried to ask this recently but without any knowledge in the meantime of government recruitment or retention for any expansion for naval personnel, its one thing to make policy statements on more ships but there is a need to man them, perhaps better informed people in this forum may have thoughts on a very large cash bonus tax free at say twenty years service and more money spent on housing onshore for families
The shaft was actually replaced with a brand new one and that is just one of many defects currently being addressed.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
At some point Australia will need to look at increasing the AOR fleet to support this fleet, these issues aren't doing Navantia any favours.
Bluey 006
Active Member
I suspect this may be a case of media sensationalism and not all that reliable but "Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues"
Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price?
.
Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price?
.Some good points.
I should of added a SSM capability in addition to the Mk 41VLS.
Of interest will be if Navy go for a modular approach or alternatively launchers and accompanying systems physically integrated to the vessel.
Cheers S
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The RAN is getting a fleet of 8 SSNs, an increase from 11-26 surface combatants, will need to look at increasing AOR numbers and you want to add an Aircraft Carrier to that as well. where is the money and crew coming from? And even if the UK gave us the POW for free, it would still be beyond our current means or under any plans currently in place to operate it.I suspect this may be a case of media sensationalism and not all that reliable but "Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues"
Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price?
PS: The Mods don't really like discussions on a RAN carrier here, it has been done to death on the old RAN thread.
a case of thanks, but no thanks....couldn't afford the boat, let alone a fleet of F35Bs or Cs or which ever model works from it.I suspect this may be a case of media sensationalism and not all that reliable but "Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues"
Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price?
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
Even if they gave us the POW for free (unlikely if the RN is trying to solve a cash problem) it needs a crew of 900 - that is the equivalent of crew for five Anzacs. Then you need a squadron of F35Bs, specially trained aircrew (takes years) and probably an extra AOR. It would destroy the RAN’s budget and people supply.I suspect this may be a case of media sensationalism and not all that reliable but "Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues"
Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price?
InterestedParty
Active Member
I know it is very easy to critise but why weren't these things, especially a shaft alignment problem which should be measurable either dimensionally or by vibration, picked up by Navantia or or project team
Bluey 006
Active Member
My goodness.... settle down. I would have thought the laughing emoji was a surefire sign, I was being sarcastic! Tounge in cheek. Obviously not
Not to mention I prefaced it with I'm not sure how reliable this is.
I didn't at all suggest we should acquire it in my original post.
I know they don't, I was there.
That said, since we are here now ......
With all due respect to the Mods
1. There is a reasonable argument that while in the past discussing a RAN Carrier was well and truly in the realm of fantasy, now in our current strategic environment it may warrant some genuine thought. Especially if one may be on offer at a discounted rate and we now have AUKUS, which impacts the plausibility of such a prospect.
Discussing purchasing a near new carrier from a close ally at a reduced rate is no more fanciful than some of the other dribble we have seen on this forum (let's not forget it is a forum, not a daily report) in the past 12 months.
It has been noted by many that the world is facing some of the most complex and challenging strategic circumstances in living memory and all the conditions mimic those before previous world wars, except now the multipolar order is much more complex with non-state actors, new technologies and societal changes that further complicate the threat matrix.
Yes we have had the Naval review and that is the plan (for now!) but the GoD on announcing the DSR cited a desire to increase our strategic deterrence, improve the range and force projection of the Australian defence force. A carrier does exactly that! It would be prudent to hear the Royal Navy out if they want to offload it. Especially since it is already built and ready for service, something that can't be said for the SSNs.
If the strategic threat is imminent enough and much of the commentary from "strategic experts" says that it is (a threat that warranted AUKUS and steps to purchase of SSNs), we will find a way to overcome the challenges and cost of operating a fixed-wing carrier. RAN has done it before and it can again.
Yes, there are cost challenges and crewing hurdles that probably make it unviable for Australia. Still, you can be fairly certain our AUKUS partners would be open to assisting us with crewing if it meant another carrier in the Western Pacific that contributes to collective security as we head into a particularly dangerous period. To completely dismiss it without some analysis would be unwise. Opportunities to acquire near new carriers don't come up often.
We are talking about home basing of subs and joint crewing, what is the difference between Sub and Carrier? This concept could be applied to both. Instead of saying no, better commentary would be how could we make this work if we need/want to.
2. Between the lines the original post is less about the carrier and more about the challenges faced by the Royal Navy, and what this means for the RAN in terms of challenges and opportunities. What we can learn from their mistakes? How can we reduce running costs? How could we reduce crewing requirements? etc
We can't, but somehow we can afford 350+ Billion for our SSNs and 58 Billion in the next decade long before we see one. If we spent $2-3 Billion on a carrier (yes, I am aware the cost would be far higher than just ship acquisition cost) we'd at least have something to show for it by 2030. To be fair they probably should through it in for free.
Anyway, I have no desire to reignite the "carrier" storm we have seen previously here. Just wanted to post some news that could be of interest to fellow posters.
Last edited: