In this respect i have wondered if the 76mm Sovreponte is a worthy option. 76mm is familiar, no deck penetration on this version, quite low weight (less than the 57mm), existing guided ammo options (Dart) with others close to operational (Vulcano), worthwhile defence against USVs and UAVs and Ashm, plus overmatch for civi or coastguard confrontations without being too provocative.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
If the LNP get power next election, and IF they change plans yet again, we had better pray that they get at least two terms, or the ADF will be an even bigger basket case than it already is. Army don't know if they are Aurthur or Matha, Beersheba or what ever the last few plans were....Navy still don't know how many of what design GP Frigate they MIGHT get, despite two reviews that killed two years....the RAAF will or should have a good supply of long range land attack and anti ship missiles, but relatively short legs, unless the new C130s have a refuelling kit added. AUKUS subs....well that won't be until after 2040 if we are honest to ourselves, we may have 2 or 3 Virginias until then, best case 5.
Plans are pretty well locked in now through necessity, and further changes would need a miracle to be timely.
Army could get some good news via a change of Govt.
So far, ALP seem to be procrastinating as far as actual signing cheques goes.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect it would depend on whether or not the 'A' position on design could take the mounting. The gun/mounting might be less than a Mk 110, but I would imagine the recoil forces from firing a 76 mm gun would be greater and the position itself might be reinforced sufficiently to handle the weight, the recoil forces, or a combination thereof.
Unfortunately I suspect no upgrade capital will be invested in the Arafuras for some time, if ever.
First focus will be getting them in the water and actually commissioned. This appears likely to take several years for all six platforms. Commissioning takes time, many months per hull for something of the complexity of the OPVs, even without the known issues with the Arafuras.
Then they will need to go into the existing patrol roster and demonstrate they can do the job of a cape.
Don't be suprised when they encounter further problems in service. These will need rectifying for the platform to obtain IOC. FOC may not realistically occur prior to 2028-2030.
Crews will need to become proficient with their new ship and gain VOCs for their watch keeping qualifications. This will also take time. I doubt the fleet will be adequately trained (so crews for all six vessels plus rotations) prior to FOC at best.
No government will invest in platform upgrades for alternative functions until the above is all completed. It would just distract from getting the fundamentals done, and they need to proove they can actually do the basics first (not currently guaranteed).
So no upgrade capital for things like guns until at earliest the back end of this decade. For those who view that they would be immediately available for other purposes, they won't be.
Coincidently, this is about the time the first GPFs come online, and then all attention (and resourcing) will go to them from then onwards.
It may be better to start looking at the cape replacement for upgraded solutions (St George is 11 years old now, with less than a decade left in it). Provided the Arafuras live up to expectations, look at an upgraded military spec OPV as a new class from early 2030s with proper damage control capabilities. This could be employed for a broader range of roles and have a better set of teeth. Fit it with a hangar, radar, bigger gun and missile defence suite. Keep its crew less than 60. I would view this would be a better investment than beefing up the Arafuras.
Run a future fleet of 6 constabulary Arafuras, and a dozen or so offshore patrol combatants for use in grey warfare around our shores.
First focus will be getting them in the water and actually commissioned. This appears likely to take several years for all six platforms. Commissioning takes time, many months per hull for something of the complexity of the OPVs, even without the known issues with the Arafuras.
Then they will need to go into the existing patrol roster and demonstrate they can do the job of a cape.
Don't be suprised when they encounter further problems in service. These will need rectifying for the platform to obtain IOC. FOC may not realistically occur prior to 2028-2030.
Crews will need to become proficient with their new ship and gain VOCs for their watch keeping qualifications. This will also take time. I doubt the fleet will be adequately trained (so crews for all six vessels plus rotations) prior to FOC at best.
No government will invest in platform upgrades for alternative functions until the above is all completed. It would just distract from getting the fundamentals done, and they need to proove they can actually do the basics first (not currently guaranteed).
So no upgrade capital for things like guns until at earliest the back end of this decade. For those who view that they would be immediately available for other purposes, they won't be.
Coincidently, this is about the time the first GPFs come online, and then all attention (and resourcing) will go to them from then onwards.
It may be better to start looking at the cape replacement for upgraded solutions (St George is 11 years old now, with less than a decade left in it). Provided the Arafuras live up to expectations, look at an upgraded military spec OPV as a new class from early 2030s with proper damage control capabilities. This could be employed for a broader range of roles and have a better set of teeth. Fit it with a hangar, radar, bigger gun and missile defence suite. Keep its crew less than 60. I would view this would be a better investment than beefing up the Arafuras.
Run a future fleet of 6 constabulary Arafuras, and a dozen or so offshore patrol combatants for use in grey warfare around our shores.
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The Arafura class probably don't have much scope for upgrade as long as the Helicopter deck is retained, there just isn't a whole lot of real estate. Even if just for UAV's, I really don't understand why they didn't get a hanger.
There is possibly scope to upgrade the sensors, but probably only to keep commonality with whatever other future minor warships get, and possibly a new main gun when someone make up their mind on what they want. But that is probably it.
There is possibly scope to upgrade the sensors, but probably only to keep commonality with whatever other future minor warships get, and possibly a new main gun when someone make up their mind on what they want. But that is probably it.
iambuzzard
Active Member
I'm having a Yes, Minister moment!
I tend to agree, they are somewhat of an enigma tho.
I think they’re impotent as a ‘minor war vessel’, and trying rationalise them as such will just cause the thinker a depressive headache.
i think they may be found to have some utility around evolving future technology, but thats just speculation.
they are a relatively sizeable platform.
i agree re the constabulary role.
personally I’m unconvinced of the value of overmatching with a GPF, indeed it might be counter-helpful to govt to have any naval vessel participating directly in counter-grey zone intimidation activity.
I think the fact that Arafuras are so (perceptively) rugged and simplistic makes them the ideal Presence vessel, because you can’t jam what it hasn’t got, you can’t EW anything exquisite if it hasn’t got it and any ship wanting to ram it no matter how fast it is will likely come off just as bad.
- I suggest it’s better to limp home to regional Australian port in a ‘basic’ Arafura than back to China in bent pretty and expensive coast guard patrol ship.
IMHO they need to overmatch fishing fleets and physically hold ground against bigger ships.
however govt decides to react to such a scenario I very much doubt they’d want a grey ship doing it, which is the exact reason naval vessels are not doing this stuff in the SCS already.
We are stuck with the Arafura's now so we are going to have to find a role for them. I am thinking UUV, USV and UAV mother ship. It has a stern ramp, has a reasonably sized flight deck and a couple of davits. Until the Hunters come into service it might be the closest thing the RAN has for a ship with a mission bay. Not ideal but when you are stuck with lemons make lemonade.
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I'm thinking that they have a role, the role for which they were designed.
They are OPV's with enhanced Sea Keeping and endurance over what the Cape Class have to offer.
So they back up the patrol boats, especially when the conditions or distance from home port would otherwise dictate that a frigate would be required.
It should not be assumed that the Arafuras are poorly equipped with systems. They have a capable surface search and lower level air search radar, and a quite reasonable outfit in other ways. It is of course optimised for the purpose for which they were acquired, ie constabulary duties, but that does not mean it is not capable. Unless you are privy to the ‘as fitted’ state of the ship, which I suspect nobody on this board is (or if they are, they will not admit to it or comment) then quite frankly, all you can do is speculate. And we are unlikely to ever find out what those EW capabilities are; EW capacity of warships is something which is very closely held.
I don't imagine they are high priority. Australia is still very far from China. I think you have a point if items are located within easy firing range of the enemy. I think OPV's and coast guard type ships are likely to be targets in the South China Sea, I think Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, certainly are going to see those ships targeted. They are likely to be in visible distance of Chinese possessions and Chinese ships, firing off something and sinking it would be absurdly easy. If the Arafura's were in that region, they too would be moving targets. They probably shouldn't go further north than Australia's EEZ. Not even to Indonesia.
TBH they would be out gunned by pirates in other waters. Around Indonesia, Malaysia, sure, probably at greater risk of being lost to pirates than the PLAN.
However, targeting something 9,000 km away, is a different matter. We are talking about China using an ICBM, to take out effectively an unarmed OPV, in Australia. That ICBM costs more than the OPV. The opportunity cost is even greater, possibly by a million.
These ships aren't really designed to accept any sort of defensive missile, and as configured, offensive one. Even the gun would be pretty marginal. There was a fair bit of criticism about them even when they were selected, as the other contenders were larger and more capable. Even lurrsen has more capable and suitable designs, a CV90 with no weapons would be easy and cost basically the same.
I always assumed that there was perhaps some interest in perhaps a pacific partner picking them up, or at least jointly deployed with them if they were ever deemed excess to requirement or if the strategic situation ever over took their original design. Even then, I think we should have built 90m ships. And in that kind of context, I think despite all the headaches, we would gladly hand them off to allies in the region, if it cemented alliances, and if it gave them useful capability, even money well spent. In that context, a helo hangar, an other such excess are not needed. Australia is likely still going to be required to fuel and maintain these ships, which even as spec, would burn holes through small nations budgets. Australia would have to assist with manning and operation.
In that context, up gunning these ships make less sense. Having them only fitted with a 25mm is probably the most suitable fitout for them. That would be enough to chase off civilian vessels. Acting on anything larger would require an alliance partner, namely Australia. I am sure that everyone would be happier with that. Even moving against larger Chinese fishing vessels and fleet would require Australia. They are more capable than the Guardian class. So for Fiji, East Timor, PNG, these ships would be massive capabilities, if home ported there. More importantly it would be a sign of the commitment with Australia. Not being full war ships with specifically low weapons fit out, would also be inline with their symbolic status. We aren't basing Destroyers out of those ports, but OPV's to help train and protect those locally and their waters. But in having a base there, with people, fuel, port facilities, if anything bigger needed to arrive in the area, it could..
Tier 2 exists, and I think has pretty much bipartisan support. I don't think its a labor thought bubble. In fact many aspects are decisively non-labor, like the overseas build portion. But Tier 2 also hasn't happened yet.
imho the 25mm is a poor choice. There are many videos and articles online showing how much more effective the 30mm gun is vs the 25mm even vs small craft. Much more firepower for very little difference in size, costs, weight etc.
Here's hoping the Tier 2 frigate works out as planned and the OPV won't matter because the first 2 Tier 2's will be delivered by 2030
Here's hoping the Tier 2 frigate works out as planned and the OPV won't matter because the first 2 Tier 2's will be delivered by 2030
It is interesting to note that some of the Tier 2 GPF designs have grown to the point where they look close to RAN's Tier 1's. Upgraded Mogami is 142m LOA or only 5m shorter than Hobart. It also compares favourably with Hunter in many ways matching its 32 VLS, 5" main gun, AESA radar and is similarly "optimised" for ASW.
With potentially 11 highly capable Tier 2's such as this covering ASW, could this allow Hunter to pivot to the 96VLS AWD version floated by BAE earlier this year? Earlier delivery of such an AAW capability including BMD would be a great outcome.
With potentially 11 highly capable Tier 2's such as this covering ASW, could this allow Hunter to pivot to the 96VLS AWD version floated by BAE earlier this year? Earlier delivery of such an AAW capability including BMD would be a great outcome.
It's very nearly 2025 now, no GP frigates has been selected yet, no contracts signed, and you believe 2 will be in service by 2030?
Well it's what SK and Japan have both offered and I'm going off their offers. I totally get your point, but it's possible we might get 1-2 by 2030 because Aust has taken a very unusual step of actually letting a foreign nation build the first few, which isn't the norm on frigates/destroyers. So since SK and Japan are the opposite of us, in that they are world leading shipbuilders, yes, it is possible, based on what we've seen so far, because they will be building them, with existing infrastructure and a trained workforce, and are already in the midst of building them. It's certainly a far different situation than for us, where we need to train up a workforce, build completely new facilities etc etc.
Well first, the G.O.D needs to actually select a design, commit to it, work out the fine details and get a contract signed.
When was the review done again?
When was the second review done?
11 ships they say?.....
When was the review done again?
When was the second review done?
11 ships they say?.....
The. 25mm is there because we have them and literally nothing else due to one of the most incompetent efforts you could find to acquire a medium calibre gun system. All done at the same time they had no trouble whatsoever in selecting the Mk.30C 30mm Typhoon gun for the HCF…
My concern is that they will stay there and nothing better will be acquired…
“Let the contractor do everything with zero input, cancelled it when they realised the effort it would take to integrate it and then paid the contractor $10m for the effort…“
Why like the RAN seemingly do you assume the PLAN won’t be coming south of the SCS during a conflict with us and therefore our home waters will be safe for dinky little (virtually) unarmed warships, built to a peacetime budget?
They literally already do in peacetime… This is them coming out of the Torres Strait, into the Coral Sea with guided missile destroyers… With the closest ADF base being HMAS Cairns… Which vessel off the top of your head is going to be based at HMAS Cairns again?
Japanese Government Tells Australia of Willingness to Cooperate in Building Warships; New Model Based on Mogami-Class Frigate
<p>Japan has officially told Australia that it is willing to participate in Canberra’s plan to introduce a new class of warship, according to government sources.</p>
japannews.yomiuri.co.jp
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not just this, but everything that goes on with bring ships into service on the back end as well. There is a reason why I have posted on the timelines of various RAN naval building programmes, as well as why I have so many reservations on what is now apparently SEA 3000. I think it might be possible, just maybe, for whoever the overseas builder ends up being, to possibly have one or two RAN vessels in the water by 2030. However, in the water is by no means the same as 'in service'. Heck, look at HMAS Arafura, which IIRC was launched (and therefore 'in the water') in December 2021, but only just now starting trials which happen ahead of a vessel being brought into service. This is why I have been anticipating any new design frigates not actually entering service until 2032-2033 at the earliest, and IMO mid-2030's around 2035 or 2036 is more likely/reasonable.
This is also making a couple of assumptions, in that no major hitches are encountered in terms of detailed design or contracting, and no major conflicts break out which stop or interruption deliveries of parts/materials and construction. It is also making the assumption that the entire programme does not fall over, which is something which I could easily see happening, especially if there were to be a major change or shakeup in gov't. Just look at how things were prior to the DSR and subsequent naval review, with the Hunter-class build progressing and a National Shipbuilding programme going. We now have a new/another class of vessel which is supposed to be getting brought into service either around the same time as the Hunter-class FFG's, or else just ahead of the Hunter-class. This new class of vessel are to initially be built overseas, but a new yard for naval warship construction will be established somewhere to build the rest (~eight vessels), whilst the planned numbers for the Hunter-class frigates have been cut by a third. Such changes to numbers ordered as well as the establishment of a new yard has effectively torpedoed any prior National Shipbuilding programme plans. Worse yet IMO is it could very easily set in motion a future political bun fight over future RAN warship design selection and production, with whomever being in power gov't at the time making decisions based upon what is politically advantageous for them (or would not be advantageous for the then Opposition at the time) rather than decisions being made upon what is best for the RAN and/or ADF, or what yard does better work, which platform and associated systems will better serve the RAN and ADF, etc. The addition of some many new hulls which are to be coming into service also reintroduce potential future issues, when these vessels begin to approach their end of service. More specifically, by having so many new ships entering in such a short span, and then likely needing replacement again at the end of 20-30+ years, it could easily lead to yet another boom/bust cycle of Australian warship production, which was one of the things the National Shipbuilding plan was attempting to address and avoid in the future.