Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

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?

Personally, I would assume that the PLAN already has at least some assets (subs) which routinely operate at least near to, if not around Australia already. I would also assume that in the event of a conflict involving the PRC and Australia (not necessarily just these two participants, more likely IMO it would be just a portion of some wider conflict) that PRC assets of all types will being coming into play in the area. As a result of such an assumption, I also assume that all maritime (naval, merchant and civilian) traffic would be potentially targeted.

If accurate, that the PRC might engage an Australian vessel in/around Australia during a conflict, the question then arises on whether such a targeted vessel could reasonably and adequately defend itself against such an attack. Realistically apart from RAN MFU's the answer is going to be a, "No." Yes, RAN minor warships, patrol forces and ABF cutters would all IMO be included in the 'No' column. A subsequent question then arises, on whether Australian gov't vessels could be upgraded to make them more credibly capable of defending themselves and possibly other nearby vessels as well. Relating to that, there would be questions on just how effective potential upgrades might be, how long they would take, and how much would they cost.

What would not change even after any hypothetical upgrades, is that a ship receiving them like an OPV, was never intended on being a frontline warship and is therefore going to be compromised at best. With that in mind, I would still recommend that Australia plan on using patrol/constab vessels for those roles which they were intended for and should be fairly decent at, with perhaps just some minor upgrades to weaponry and systems fitted. If Australia were to spend the coin needed to make the OPV's into something more like FSG's, such funding could likely pay for another frigate or two which IMO would be a better use of resources.

 

[SammyC]

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?

View attachment 51667

I see this becomming more common. Their blue water navy is maturing with their type 52 and 55 destroyers, and type 54 frigates. The two in the picture are a type 52D destroyer (their latest model) and a Type 71 amphibious transport (equivalent to a San Antonio).

If memory serves me, this destroyer pointed a military laser at a RAAF P8 around the time of this photo. Hardley a benign transit.

This trip was most likely in response to our earlier freedom of passage voyages through the South China Sea (some quid pro quo). It was not friendly or invited and there were no port visits. The message was fairly blunt.

We will undoubtedly be doing more in the SCS region, not less, in the coming years, and China will act accordingly. Therefore expect China to conduct regular excursions into waters around our direct region to return the favour and provoke us.

Put this same fleet through the Pacific Islands, off the coast of Christmas Island, perhaps it starts to harass one of the NW shelf gas platforms, or picks on an offshore fishing vessel. They have the capacity to do several patrols at the same time to spread us very thin.

They are starting to use the type 54 frigate as a base model for new coast guard cutters (same ship, just painted white). Expect to see this vessel type accompanying long distance fishing fleets within regions that will concern us. Think of the problems the Argentinean patagonean fishermen used to cause us down in the Antarctic waters, and then imagine this as a protected fleet of several ships on an industrial level. China is already expanding its Antartic continental presence.

I would view this is the reality within the next few years. Call this the 2027 picture that we will likely face. No hot war, just direct coercion in our backyard, within sight of our coast and threatening our resources.

An Arafura would firstly struggle to maintain contact with a fleet like this, and if it did, would be agressively pushed. Lasers would be the least of it.

The Arafuras and Capes will still have a full time job dealing with normal illegal fishing, drugs and immigration, so this in no way negates the investment in this necessary work. This probably gets worse as the region becomes less stable.

But it does mean that the threat within our region changes, and these constabulary resources will be insufficient to deal with it.

The poor old ANZACs are going to get pulled into this and worked even harder. Our P8s and new Tritons will as well. They will be continually in the air off our coast, using up valuable airframe time. I suspect the USN and UK SSN rotational force will provide some tracking services in addition to our own Collins. Even the new GPFs are going to be fully employed locally dealing with this..

This will consume most of our RAN and RAAF hardened reconnaissance and combat assets and keep us very nicely pinned in our region. Our developing littoral army will be hamstrung without their support and stuck on the mainland.

China easily has the resources to keep our forces fully occupied in our domain and out of theirs. As things progressively heat up, this is what they will do. There is more than one way to take us out of the fight.

This, by the way aligns with the decision to no longer support expeditionary activities (such as the red sea stuff), and an increasing USN presence in FBW (subs first, ships later) as we prepare for this reality.

 

[Armchair]

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?

if the conflict is the invasion of Taiwan then PLAN surface ships will have plenty of other things to be doing (in support of what is probably the most ambitious amphibious assault that has ever been seriously contemplated). Submarines, and shore based missiles, will certainly be threats for the RAN and are presumably the reasons the Arafura program was slashed and not upgunned and/or redirected to mine warfare. The RAN’s gamble is that SSNs will be available for post Taiwan conflicts.

In effect an OPV, or any other dinky warship, in a major conflict is equivalent to a merchant or auxiliary vessel. If it is militarily useful to have a crew on board an OPV during a conflict then it would need to be escorted. The presumption in the advocacy for upgunned OPVs is, I think, that the OPVs would add to escort and ASW capacity when the reality is they would subtract from it (e.g., by requiring escorts while they attempted constabulary duties during wartime).

 

[Stampede]

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?

As has being stated with the Arafura Class even when the ship joins the fleet it takes time to become fully comfortable with how this new shipworks, its potential and how it fits within the broader ADF.
At this stage the ship truly becomes a capability.

Ramp that expectation to a new destroyer!
Even if we do get the two vessels commissioned by 2030 will they actually be a true capability!
An ambitious time table
An ambitious expectation

By 2030 we will have lost six mcm vessels and six survey vessels plus probably be down 3 to 4 ANZACs

Hunter Class and GPF delivery to service / acceptance / familiarity and in ship multiples of more than one is when we truly get capability.

This is still a long way off and working on the principle of best case scenario

Repeat best case senario!

Love or hate the OPVs , they are / were the only realistic opportunity for some modest enhancement of the fleet.

RAAF Army and Allies will increasingly assist with the maritime domain within the realm of their capability

Cheers. S

 

[old faithful]

Stampede, I think this point is also lost when people talk about the Chinese.
There fleet is building at the rate of the entire French navy annually, but that would mean massive amounts of inexperienced crews and Captains. But they do have a head start.

 

[StingrayOZ]

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?

Its peace time. We operated Oberons in Chinese ports, Chinese operate in the Mediterranean. The Russians transit the English Channel. So the context is a bit different.

I understand that people feel the OPV are under armed.. Yes, as combatants they are, I agree, I also think they should have had a full hangar, 76mm gun which would have been more useful (even just for training etc), and the capacity to be fitted with ESSM and a few NSM (space allocated for etc). If they ever had to be pressed into a more risky roll, or the security of the EEZ is so compromised, then we could probably look at doing that. Unfortunately these ships can never be fitted with any of that.

Presumably they will be operating under the protection of the RAAF and the rest of the RAN, and they operate under the wider protective bubble of the US. Doing fairly mundane duties.

China main enemy isn't Australia, honestly we probably don't even make the top 5, perhaps not even the top 10. If China it at war with the US, with Japan, with Korea, with Phillipines, with Taiwan.. It won't be an easy sail in war time to the north of Australia. I am not saying they couldn't do it, but in terms of priorities and what it would achieve, it would seem to be an unlikely first move. I am not saying that there is no risk, that the Chinese can't strike at Australia and her ships and her interests, but I am not sure a Chinese SSN is after the OPV, unless it is located near much more valuable assets is it taking out. I am more doubtful of a Chinese surface fleet turning up and striking Cairns, at least until it has defeated our Navy and our Airforce. With the Chinese surface fleet, the one thing we can be sure of, is that we will see them coming.

Now in a conflict where the US is isolationist and withdrawn, or in civil disorder, that Japan and or Korea are defeated or incapacitated, or in peace time or grey zone conflict that can be an issue. If we ever start losing combatants, then these platforms won't be able to be pushed into any sort of service.

From what I can see we are ~3 years away from a major global conflict. And we have spent all our money, ship yard, focus, energy, political capital, and effort on getting these OPVs.

In a conflict there are probably dozens of commercial/civilian ships that could do a similar mission as the OPVs. Maybe not as well, but good enough. We focused on building an expensive in every way platform, but in terms of capabilities, I struggle to see the value.

But I also struggle to see how strapping stuff to it fixes the problem. Again, taking more focus, money, industry, engineering to fix.

In the same way I think strapping a 40mm gun and a NSM onto OPV Nemesis turns it into a surface combatant.

OPV Nemesis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Going Boeing]

There’s a significant upgrade of the Cocos Island airfield planned and the US has indicated that they are interested in having access to it (especially if the Brits hand Diego Garcia back to Mauritius). Because of its strategic location, I would expect frequent PLAN operations in the vicinity, similar to our operations in the SCS.

UK and Mauritius Resume Talks Over Diego Garcia, a Key U.S. Naval Base

 

[hauritz]

T

As has being stated with the Arafura Class even when the ship joins the fleet it takes time to become fully comfortable with how this new shipworks, its potential and how it fits within the broader ADF.
At this stage the ship truly becomes a capability.

Ramp that expectation to a new destroyer!
Even if we do get the two vessels commissioned by 2030 will they actually be a true capability!
An ambitious time table
An ambitious expectation

By 2030 we will have lost six mcm vessels and six survey vessels plus probably be down 3 to 4 ANZACs

Hunter Class and GPF delivery to service / acceptance / familiarity and in ship multiples of more than one is when we truly get capability.

This is still a long way off and working on the principle of best case scenario

Repeat best case senario!

Love or hate the OPVs , they are / were the only realistic opportunity for some modest enhancement of the fleet.

RAAF Army and Allies will increasingly assist with the maritime domain within the realm of their capability

Cheers. S

It is scary to think how small the fleet could potentially be around 2030s. Worse when you think that at least one Hobart and Collins will be out of the water receiving refits and the bulk of the rest of the fleet will be made up of lightly armed or unarmed vessels. The worst case scenaro could be a further rise in tensions between China and the West. That could see the US, Korea and Japan putting their own interests first and withdrawing their offers to provide combat vessels to Australia. Australia's big gamble is that the strategic situation in this region remains stable through to the late 2030s which frankly is a HUGE gamble.

 

[SammyC]

Japan, Australia to Hold 2-Plus-2 Security Talks on Thurs.

Interestingly there is a Japan Australia 2+2 ministerial meeting coming up on Thursday this week. The first since 2022. I wonder if we will hear anything at this time.

 

[Bluey 006]

What would not change even after any hypothetical upgrades, is that a ship receiving them like an OPV, was never intended on being a frontline warship and is therefore going to be compromised at best. With that in mind, I would still recommend that Australia plan on using patrol/constab vessels for those roles which they were intended for and should be fairly decent at, with perhaps just some minor upgrades to weaponry and systems fitted.

As RAN vessels the Arafura class will conduct a variety of missions sets, navigate different threat levels and face a diverse cross section of threats of throughout their service lives.

Even in their intended mission of patrol and constabulary in and around Australia’s EEZ they may face challengers that are better armed, in both wartime and peacetime. This doesn’t have to be a powerful nation state approaching Australia coast with warships or coast guard vessels, it could be pirates, armed merchant vessels, fishing vessels, terrorists/extremists, activists, drug runners, people smugglers, PMCs. Such vessels could quite easily be armed with .50 cal guns, RPGs, anti-tank missiles, FPV/RP drones, man portable SAMs, 30 mm cannons, mines or even basic energy weapons.

The goal of the ADF (given its small size) is to have “relative superiority” during confrontations when and where they happen. Will a single 25mm gun offer that superiority?

Naturally if there is an armed vessel in our waters or area of interest (be a flagged nation state vessel, state sponsored civilian vessel or something else) ideally a MFU or Aircraft will be sent to investigate and engage it. However, these will not always be available in a time critical manner. They could be out of area, engaged elsewhere, damaged or destroyed, denied access to the area, deemed overkill for the situation – whatever. They can’t be everywhere at once.

One of the key reasons a navy operates OPVs is to have an RAN presence in more areas than our major warships can practicably or economically be. Grey Zone confrontations can be planned, intentional and expected, but they can also happen unexpectedly.

I don’t think anyone here really thinks that if up arming an OPV and sending it into a high threat situation in place of a warship is a good idea. But the fact is the Arafura’s are ADF vessels that will be operating independently in areas that pose an element of risk and are expected to be able to respond to threats in a timely manner when other options are not available, there is a target of opportunity, or to buy time for it or those threatened to escape, and/or other assets to arrive.

Given that the RAN investigated adding a containerised variant of C-Dome suggests to me that they at least acknowledge and understand the above. What are other options?

Can we find a way to bring them up to the same standard as the “parent class” the KDB Darulaman? (i.e. a larger gun and ASM)

Can we acquire other containerised weapons packages?

Can we arm whatever UAV that might end up onboard? (S-100/S-300 with LMM just as an example)

Could we put an RBS-70 team or Javelin team onboard?

Could we add a small LaWS type system?

What else can be done now cheaply and easily that might facilitate these or other additions later?

Does any of these things make it “warship” capable of high intensity warfare? No

But during a serious conflict or period of heighten tensions naval threats will come as expected - naval vessels and coast guard vessels, but many also may come dressed as something else. The OPVs have an important role to play addressing those lower tier challenges. Lets make sure we give them “relative superiority” , or have at least considered how we can. Innovation is often born from necessity.

 

[Bob53]

In the event of a 'hot' conflict, any/all vessels flying an Australian ensign, and/or transiting Australian waters will be targets. However, there is a difference in the potential values of various targets, and therefore whether something might get engaged simply because it is a target of opportunity, or because a hostile power sees value in directing forces to specifically 'kill' a vessel. Fitting AShM/LACM with ranges of 200+ km can easily change the value in eliminating a vessel, particularly if this same vessel has no real air defence capability apart from a CIWS.

As I have mentioned previously, modest upgrades to the weapons and self-defence systems of the Arafura-class OPV's would likely be reasonable IMO. This would likely be things like fitting a larger rapid-fire small or medium calibre gun (30 mm - 40 mm) that might also have a higher potential ROF as well as more programmable munitions options, and perhaps in a more robust mounting. Other possible options would be to fit more/additional small or medium calibre guns to provide greater fire arc coverage and/or the ability to engage in multiple targets approaching from different vectors simultaneously. It might also be worth looking into whether decoy launchers could be fitted and integrated.

One also needs to keep in mind that not only do any upgrades need to fit within the available real estate aboard an OPV, the systems being added need to be integrated. Now I have no idea on the precise details of the OPV design and fitout, but I could easily see there being a number of areas which if not impossible to overcome, might be difficult and/or expensive, and therefore impractical. We know that the Arafura-class OPV's are to be fitted with SaabTech's 9LV CMS, but do we know whether or not this is the full CMS or more just workstations with the 9LV interface. Going further with this, does the bridge, CIC or whatever aboard an Arafura-class have the space to fit more workstations to control any additional shipboard weapon systems or self-defence suites? Is there sufficient power and/or cooling to fit and run more? Also what about the sensors and comm systems as fitted. Can they provide adequate detection range for some of the proposed systems to be functionally useful, or at least aide in improving the survivability of the vessel in the event of an attack. RIght now is appears the area air/surface search radar fitted aboard the OPV's is the Terma Scanter 6002 radar, which provides an area detection range out to ~15 n miles and up to an altitude of 6,000 ft. That would make effective employment of something like NSM problematic and make the OPV's dependent on offboard sensors. That dependence on offboard sensors could also be problematic because most OPV's do not have a comprehensive electronics fitout (which is part of why they are OPV's and not corvettes, as well as why they are simpler and less expensive to build and operate) which means that the OPV's might not be able to send or receive Link 11/16/22 and so on.

It would be fine for the RAN to have personnel and/or naval architects look over the design and vessels to see what, if anything could be done and then if there are potential options, to look at what would be required for them to be fitted (time and costs involved). However, major design upgrades or changes are not trivial projects, and this is the case when there are not space and weight/displacement limitations. When those two issues are also involved, things become more complicated and difficult. Right now the Arafura-class OPV's are (were?) set to have a per unit programme cost of ~AUD$300 mil. but that could easily double if not more if it was decided to refit them more like the German K130 Braunschweig-class corvette.

I personally have two issues with much of the talk regarding upgrading the OPV's. The first is that pretty much no matter what upgrades get done, the design itself will still not as capable as another vessel of that size which was designed as a warship from the start. Basically the only way to change this would be to completely gut the OPV and redo the entire design and build, to include all the features warships normally have. From a practical standpoint, it would probably be cheaper, easier and faster to just scrap an OPV and build a new class of proper warship from scratch. The second has to do with outlook. In some respects, all this talk of upgrading the OPV's reminds me of discussions which went on not long after the US went into Iraq in 2003 and suddenly found itself sending troops out on patrols in very much inadequate M1114 HMMWV Humvee's which then led to the crash development of uparmour kits which made the Humvees more protected, to a degree but still well short of being actual APC's.

If the desire is for the RAN to have more actual, effective warships, then Australia needs to devote the resources to make that happen. Trying to make constabulary patrol assets into warships is just going to require significant resources without providing a real increase in capability.

My point is not about up arming simply that any navyship would be a target and in a purely RAN aspect it’s not like any adversary would overwhelmed with choices. There is not enough….nor will there be enough RAN ships …especially in the one place …..that any prospective enemy will need to get choosy.

Personally if I was setting sail I would like to know my ship has some means of self defence.

 

[Bob53]

My take for the Arafura Class is increasing their level overmatch.
An Arafura as is today, compared to a Arafura with a modest increase in capability .
The comparison is NOT between an OPV and a Frigate.
Its not about adding SAM's and large 'ASM's. That's realistically trying to turn it into something its not.

57mm main gun and maybe Spike NLOS or smaller.
Ensure the Flight deck can land a medium sized helicopter and refuel it...( Lily Pad )
S 100 sized UAV and supporting equipment.

This should be doable and not break the bank.

It would provide many more options of response compared to the Arafura classes current fitout.


Something to consider is the large fleet of medium and heavy landing craft that are to come in to service.
Potentially some 26 vessels.

I can see the need for light end escort duty in this realm.

We need to free up out limited number of Frigates as best we can.

A 25mm armed Arafura does not do this!


Cheers S

PS - To an advisory a vessel painted grey or another colour is a target and an opportunity.

They are all targets of opportunity and satisfy their domestic audience with point scoring.

Good point re the landing craft possibly needing a light escort.

 

[Bob53]

Despite all the negativity regarding the Arafura class OPVs, I like them (maybe that makes me the odd one out? Who cares, hey?).

Why?

Because I still think they were the right type of ship for the role they were ‘originally’ intended for, the patrol and constabulary role.

If you look at the three previous classes of patrol boats, they are a significant improvement.

We’ve had three classes of PBs, Attack (32.8m), Fremantle (41.9m) and the Armadale (56.8m).

The Arafura OPVs (80m), 40mm main gun (originally), large flight/multi-mission deck, a large mission deck below, and three large RHIBs, what’s not to love when it came to a successor to the Armidale class?

Originally 12 planned, now cut to six (6), but let’s not forget the LNP, in their 2020 DSU, were looking to add another eight (8) for the mine warfare and hydro roles, in other words the Arafura class has been cut from 20 down to 6.

I can hear all the barking, yelping and screams now, “but we need more ships with more firepower!!” Don’t disagree.


Yes we need a larger force of DDG, FFG, FF(?), no argument, but should we be cutting the balls off the patrol and constabulary forces at the same time? I think not.

The patrol and constabulary force has been gutted, a handful of Arafura and a majority of Cape class (an underarmed update of the Armidale class).

Is it all over? Done and dusted? Maybe?

The ALP gutted the LNP plan, let’s wait and see what happens at the next change of Government, my bet is the LNP will do to the ALP, what was done to their plans.

Let’s wait and see .....

slighlty Ot but current polls are suggesting Labour will be a minority government at the next election and will have to do a deal with the Greens or possibly the teals or possibly both. That will almost certainly make anything defence related way more complex.

 

[Reptilia]

Japan, Australia to Hold 2-Plus-2 Security Talks on Thurs.

Interestingly there is a Japan Australia 2+2 ministerial meeting coming up on Thursday this week. The first since 2022. I wonder if we will hear anything at this time.

Also interesting the Japanese defense ministry requested 3 new upgraded FFM to be built from 2025 and not the planned and budgeted for 2.
The Japanese are also integrating the NSM so I wonder if the new Type 12 SSM is a possibility for us. (900-1,500km range.)

Japan requests largest-ever defense budget for fiscal year 2025 - Naval News

The Japan MoD issued its largest ever defense budget request. Plans include the construction of three New FFMs.

www.navalnews.com

 

[76mmGuns]

Also interesting the Japanese defense ministry requested 3 new upgraded FFM to be built from 2025 and not the planned and budgeted for 2.
The Japanese are also integrating the NSM so I wonder if the new Type 12 SSM is a possibility for us. (900-1,500km range.)

Japan requests largest-ever defense budget for fiscal year 2025 - Naval News

The Japan MoD issued its largest ever defense budget request. Plans include the construction of three New FFMs.

www.navalnews.com

Just conjecture, but wonder if the increase to 3 upgraded FFM means Japan will have the option to do what France did with Egypt when it gave Egypt 2 brand new FREMM instead of making Egypt waiting a couple of years for ones off the production line.. ie give Australia the earliest ones off the line, hopefully not 1st one though.

 

[Reptilia]

Just conjecture, but wonder if the increase to 3 upgraded FFM means Japan will have the option to do what France did with Egypt when it gave Egypt 2 brand new FREMM instead of making Egypt waiting a couple of years for ones off the production line.. ie give Australia the earliest ones off the line, hopefully not 1st one though.

For Australia to get 1 delivered by end 2029, Japan would have to begin the build in late 2025 or first half 2026.
The first 2 upgraded FFM are to be commissioned in the first half of 2029. A third could go to the JMSDF or potentially Australia.

 

[Todjaeger]

My point is not about up arming simply that any navyship would be a target and in a purely RAN aspect it’s not like any adversary would overwhelmed with choices. There is not enough….nor will there be enough RAN ships …especially in the one place …..that any prospective enemy will need to get choosy.

Personally if I was setting sail I would like to know my ship has some means of self defence.

Realistically, any vessel in Australia's vicinity would become a potential target in the event of a direct conflict, not just RAN warships. Where things can make a difference is what the perceived value a particular vessel has to Australia, and/or how much of a potential threat or difficulty an Australian vessel might present to the PRC.

Hypothetically, a PRC vessel or TF deployed in an anti-shipping or surface interdiction role would likely engage any Australian vessels that came into their area of ops and they detected or encountered, assuming a hot conflict had broken out involving Australia and the PRC. Having said that, IMO it would be unlikely that the PRC would specifically a PLAN sub or surface warship to go specifically after a RAN OPV. Similarly, I rather doubt that the PLA-AF might send a squadron (or more) of AShM-armed H-6's to carry out a maritime strike with the object being to 'take out' an Arafura-class OPV by damaging or sinking her.

OTOH, I could easily see the PRC specifically tasking resources to neutralize or eliminate some of the high value RAN vessels like the Hobart-class DDG's or the Canberra-class LHD's. If the PRC were able to do so, not only would they reduce the potential threat the RAN could present to them, but also limit Australia's options and operational capabilities. How limited would Australia become if even just one of the Hobart-class DDG's were to get 'mission-killed' with damage done to the SPY array? With there only being three destroyers for area air defence in the RAN, the lost of even a single vessel (even if not a permanent loss) would force the remaining operational vessels to take over and maintain the fleet air defence. This would limit when, where and for how long fleet air defence could be provided and maintained, as well as placing increased stress upon both the operational vessels and their crews, whilst limiting at least some of the options for maintenance and recovery.

Now one also needs to keep in mind what the OPV's were designed for, and what that means. The OPV's (and OPV's are) were designed to provide a patrol and constabulary presence and capability, without requiring the same amount of resources to acquire and maintain as a major warship like a frigate or destroyer would. Consider this, the total programme cost (including the pair of Kiwi frigates) for ANZAC-class frigates was AUD$4.366 bil. for ten vessels, in 1988 prices. Using inflation calculator from the Reserve Bank of Australia, that suggests that had an ANZAC-class frigate been built as part of an un-interupted build programme in 2018 at the same approximate per unit cost, would have been just under ~AUD$994 mil. per vessel at 2018 prices. The reason I set the date at 2018, is that when the Arafura-class OPV's had pricing calculated, it was in 2018, and at 2018 dollars working out to ~AUD$300 mil. per vessel. What I am trying to drive home, is the point that if proper combat capabilities were (or are) desired, there are costs involved. One does not get frigate-like capabilities whilst only paying a third (or less) the cost needed. AFAIK in fact, part of the reason behind the development of OPV's was the recognition by a number of nations that they needed more patrol and enforcement capabilities for situations where a frigate or destroyer would be overkill and therefore did not want to or perhaps could not afford to 'just' build and crew more MFU's. OPV's instead provided the size, range and potential mission endurance needed, but were less expensive because they were not typically fitted with the same weapons, sensor and electronics systems and suites as a frontline frigate, and which often comprise a third or more of the initial cost a new warship.

With that in mind, Australia should use the OPV's for what they were acquired for, to provide increasing patrolling and constabulary response against suspected SIEV's, fish poachers and the like. It really would not be appropriate or suitable for event grey conflict with PRC fishing fleets, because such fleets could also include Chinese Coast Guard vessels. If one has been paying attention, some of the warship classes the PLAN had been using have now been either adopted by or transferred to the Chinese Coast Guard, so it has become distinctly possible that any PRC fishing fleet might be accompanied by what is effectively a FFG in capabilities. Even if serious (and IMO wasteful) coin were spent upgrading the OPV's to the utmost, that might at best result in a vessel which is a capability match for an escorting PRC Coast Guard vessel and not the overmatch typically needed to enable safe and effective patrol and enforcement ops.

In the event of a hot conflict breaking out, then Australia likely would need to pull the OPV's back and use the personnel now no longer going to sea in OPV's to flesh out the crews for the MFU's, and/or use them as a sort of base to increase the number of MFU's actually in service. I see this as being more reasonable, and more likely to be successful, than trying to double or triple the funds spent per OPV, in an attempt to turn them into something like a FSG.

 

[Reptilia]

It is scary to think how small the fleet could potentially be around 2030s. Worse when you think that at least one Hobart and Collins will be out of the water receiving refits and the bulk of the rest of the fleet will be made up of lightly armed or unarmed vessels. The worst case scenaro could be a further rise in tensions between China and the West. That could see the US, Korea and Japan putting their own interests first and withdrawing their offers to provide combat vessels to Australia. Australia's big gamble is that the strategic situation in this region remains stable through to the late 2030s which frankly is a HUGE gamble.

Maybe the F105 Cristobal Colon can be offered by the Spanish Armada and purchased as compensation for Navantias screw up with the supply class.
A 4th destroyer would come in real handy over the next decade if it can be upgraded to the same or similar spec as the current destroyers.
The first of the F110 Bonifaz class frigates will be launched next year with 4 more by 2029. + option for 2 more according to a source on wiki.
2030/31 wouldn’t look as bad with 4 upgraded Hobarts, 4-5 upgraded Anzacs, 1-2 new GPF, 5 Collins(2 upgraded), 6 Arafura, 12+ Capes.

 

[Armchair]

Good point re the landing craft possibly needing a light escort.

When the threats are submarines and shore based teams (including possible non state actors) firing AShMs then a light escort is, at best, a decoy and another emission source rather than an actual escort.

The minor warfare roles that were contemplated in SEA1180 (20+ OCVs reduced to 12 OPVs plus a new mine warfare capability) are being reassigned to 11 GPFs and elsewhere because the world (and the distribution of threats in it) has changed.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe the F105 Cristobal Colon can be offered by the Spanish Armada and purchased as compensation for Navantias screw up with the supply class.
A 4th destroyer would come in real handy over the next decade if it can be upgraded to the same or similar spec as the current destroyers.
The first of the F110 Bonifaz class frigates will be launched next year with 4 more by 2029. + option for 2 more according to a source on wiki.
2030/31 wouldn’t look as bad with 4 upgraded Hobarts, 4-5 upgraded Anzacs, 1-2 new GPF, 5 Collins(2 upgraded), 6 Arafura, 12+ Capes.

I wouldn't rule this completely out. The acquisition of a ship from Spain. Or a lease.
From what I hear Spain may be interested of moving one along. The Americans home port several aegis destroyers in spain, so the transfer of a single hull isn't a huge issue for their region, they have new Aegis ships coming on line. They would rather fund new F-110 hulls than refurb existing. Spain isn't facing quite the same naval threat in its region, and there are other assets. Australia might be able to get it for Spanish refurbishment costs. I wouldn't rule out even the temporary basing of a ship in Australia like with the AOR. The hobarts are the heart of Australia's surface combatant capability. We have training/sailors/logistics etc for them, in time of conflict, there is even a small pool of those that have left the service that could be reactivated (by 2027 that would be 10 years of crewing experience to draw from).

How limited would Australia become if even just one of the Hobart-class DDG's were to get 'mission-killed' with damage done to the SPY array? With there only being three destroyers for area air defence in the RAN, the lost of even a single vessel (even if not a permanent loss) would force the remaining operational vessels to take over and maintain the fleet air defence.

For the entire southern Hemisphere, Australia is the only Aegis navy. So if things get orbital, We are the only ones with any sort of coverage to take out anything that has the perigee of its orbit in the southern hemisphere (which is extremely likely in a conflict, that China would shift its orbital assets to this kind of orbit to provide more time over the SCS/US/Europe while making it harder to hit from assets based in the northern hemisphere). Australia's longitude is also very favourable. Ideally we would have some sort of Aegis ship based out of Perth.

It also wouldn't even need to be combat damage. Operating at high tempo, things break and get worn much faster, an accident, storm damage, wear and tear, with only 3 hulls, capability becomes very fickle. Remembering that we will have a huge upgrade program which will result in most of them being out of the water, so for much over the next few years we will have more like two ships sort of available.

Also interesting the Japanese defense ministry requested 3 new upgraded FFM to be built from 2025 and not the planned and budgeted for 2.
The Japanese are also integrating the NSM so I wonder if the new Type 12 SSM is a possibility for us. (900-1,500km range.)

Things are absolutely ramping up, It has been rumoured that the Japanese wanted a more aggressive delivery schedule, particularly to seal the deal with Australia. That seems to be on the cards now. IMO even if the Australia-japan deal doesn't happen, Japan absolutely should build as many as it can as quick as it can.

Also I wonder if to help offset the overseas mogami builds, if Japan would accept some amphibious landing/transport ships built in Australia.

slighlty Ot but current polls are suggesting Labour will be a minority government at the next election and will have to do a deal with the Greens or possibly the teals or possibly both. That will almost certainly make anything defence related way more complex

While we should avoid politics, I actually feel that Labor and the Coalition are now pretty friendly on defence. I don't see them axing each others programs, the fall out from alliance partners and industry would kill them. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but I expect that they would rather deal with each other than with the Greens, Teals are pure wild cards, and some may be more anti-defence than the greens. Particularly on defence matters, which may require execution over multiple terms of government, of which many of those may be flash in the pans.