Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

The Arafuras would (or maybe, will) require require considerable modification to carry out the MCM or Hydro functions. That would be particularly true if they were planned to be used for offshore hydro.

From what I was able to find searching, it seems as though much of the present requests for SEA 1905 are currently looking at the various mission control systems, remote and autonomous undersea vehicles and not so much about what the 'mothership' will be. I did fine something from ADBR that the former Def Min had stated in Jan 2021 that the Arafura-class OPV hull would serve as the basis for the hull of the MCM vessel but I did not find a Defence or AusGov press release or other announcement to the same effect. However, even if a former official made such an announcement whilst in office, that is not the same as a contract signing. As we have already seen, even contracts can get cancelled but there are costs and often penalties for doing so. An announcement, even by gov't, is just not quite as significant.

I also find the notion 'interesting' since I would have expected Australia to have to do some sort of tender process as opposed to sole-sourcing an already selected design for modification. Particularly when the base design is not really one that comes to mind as immediately suitable for MCM ops.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The ABC article linked below is yet another that refers to the likelihood of Australia both buying UK designed (and built) SSNs and building more of the same at ASC under AUKUS. Whilst not formally announced yet, this is the fifth such article to make this claim in the last month. Other articles were in the Australian, AFR, SMH and ABC (Laura Tingle). I have not seen a single article since January suggesting the RAN will be getting Virginias.

The article quotes the Defence Acquisition Minister Pat Conroy and says:
”With expectations growing that Australia might soon announce it is acquiring British-designed nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership, Mr Conroy said he pressed his counterpart on what the UK could also buy from its security partner.”

British military urged to 'buy Australian' after UK clinches lucrative defence contracts Down Under

The defence industry minister challenges the UK to purchase more Australian-made military equipment such as Bushmasters given British companies have won billions of dollars of recent contracts here, including the lucrative Hunter-class frigate program.

www.abc.net.au

There is other content in this article which is pleasing (to me) to see government thinking about. It refers to the desirability of getting more Australian content into UK designed warships Australia is building, examples of Adelaide firms that are already supplying components to UK warship construction (e.g. PMB batteries) and the wish for some sucess in the reverse direction i.e. Australia exporting defence designs or components to the UK.

Australian Defence will never sign a more expensive contract than the one to build SSNs. The flip side of that is we will never be in a stronger negotiating position to contract to share other work with BAE and the RN.

 

[hauritz]

The Arafura is not suited to MCM or any other combat role. Probably too small for the hydro role as well. It is an OPV and to be honest it is probably going to be inadequate in that role when we start to see more Chinese encroachment in this region.

At this stage I just hope the next defence review gets it right and we actually get a vessel that can do the job for which it is intended.

If the rumours of a corvette turn out to be true I would prefer to see future construction of the Arafura cancelled rather than trying to adapt them into other roles.

 

[seaspear]

The Frech navies O.P.V for their south pacific territory is of a similar size to the Arafura ,is there role and responsibilities so different?
France confirms order for six new POM Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval News

 

[John Fedup]

The ABC article linked below is yet another that refers to the likelihood of Australia both buying UK designed (and built) SSNs and building more of the same at ASC under AUKUS. Whilst not formally announced yet, this is the fifth such article to make this claim in the last month. Other articles were in the Australian, AFR, SMH and ABC (Laura Tingle). I have not seen a single article since January suggesting the RAN will be getting Virginias.

The article quotes the Defence Acquisition Minister Pat Conroy and says:
”With expectations growing that Australia might soon announce it is acquiring British-designed nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS partnership, Mr Conroy said he pressed his counterpart on what the UK could also buy from its security partner.”

British military urged to 'buy Australian' after UK clinches lucrative defence contracts Down Under

The defence industry minister challenges the UK to purchase more Australian-made military equipment such as Bushmasters given British companies have won billions of dollars of recent contracts here, including the lucrative Hunter-class frigate program.

www.abc.net.au

There is other content in this article which is pleasing (to me) to see government thinking about. It refers to the desirability of getting more Australian content into UK designed warships Australia is building, examples of Adelaide firms that are already supplying components to UK warship construction (e.g. PMB batteries) and the wish for some sucess in the reverse direction i.e. Australia exporting defence designs or components to the UK.

Australian Defence will never sign a more expensive contract than the one to build SSNs. The flip side of that is we will never be in a stronger negotiating position to contract to share other work with BAE and the RN.

Until the official announcement is made we can speculate but given the pressing demands by the USN (and Congress) on EB and NN, I can’t see Virginia SSNs happening. The USN needs more SSNs and the Columbia SSBN is now under way as is design work on SSN(X).

 

[Todjaeger]

The Frech navies O.P.V for their south pacific territory is of a similar size to the Arafura ,is there role and responsibilities so different?
France confirms order for six new POM Offshore Patrol Vessels - Naval News

Not really, as the French vessels are also intended as OPV's and not combat vessels. Where issues for the RAN arise is that a number of commentators and contributors to defence "publications..." apparently keep wanting to turn the Arafura-class OPV's into combat vessels which can cover roles undertaken by the likes of the ANZAC-class frigates. Other ideas which seem to have been suggested is to have the OPV's deploy as part of RAN task forces which would cause all sorts of issues...

 

[Tbone]

Is it just me but aren’t OPV’s still a very much required part of any navy?
I understand everyone wants combatants but the Arafura class with its modular design will be a very capable vessel and a workhorse undertaking many roles just not on the front line.

 

[Tbone]

Until the official announcement is made we can speculate but given the pressing demands by the USN (and Congress) on EB and NN, I can’t see Virginia SSNs happening. The USN needs more SSNs and the Columbia SSBN is now under way as is design work on SSN(X).

Possible Los Angeles class refueled boats from 2028.. say 4 of the six planned by the US Navy to get us through until Australia builds its own earliest 2038 perhaps?
But it’s all rumours and I don’t want to upset anyone

 

[Stampede]

Is it just me but aren’t OPV’s still a very much required part of any navy?
I understand everyone wants combatants but the Arafura class with its modular design will be a very capable vessel and a workhorse undertaking many roles just not on the front line.

The OPV's and the Cape Class are in fact combatants.................................They carry guns!
Over match is relative to what your up against.
A 50 Cal is an impressive weapon against anything smaller.
The Arafura class can and will carry something bigger.

The OPV's will be a good workhorse for the RAN and suggest Army as well.
They will evolve.
Would I have selected something more capable back in the day, Yes.
We have what we have.
The ships have a good useful multi purpose flight deck area for aviation and containers
Two large cranes that access this zone and the ships boats plus another sea boat "out the back"
Room for 20 extra personnel to "do things".
Good flexible vessels that can carry and deliver personnel and perform a wide range of duties.
Not to bad a design for their intended role.

A very big jump up from the patrol boat era.

They will serve us well.
They need to as there is a good chance they will be tested.


Cheers S

 

[Tbone]

Would a low cost transfer of 4x harpoon launchers be an option for the Arafura?
30mm or 40mm up front with harpoon taken from other vessels receiving the NSM.
The radar/sensor fitted to the Arafura has a range of 150km and the harpoon range of 125km.
Would this be an easy design change fitting harpoons to the opv with little cost already acquired and in supply?
Since they won’t be frontline combatants the harpoon would offer anti ship and land attach capability

@Tbone Posting about up arming of Arafura Class has been banned by Moderator Team since last year. You are awarded 6 demerit points for 6 months and have been banned from replying to this thread for 14 days. Don't do it again or the reply ban will become a full ban.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Tbone]

Text deleted for posting content banned by Moderators. See warning in post above.

Ngatimozart

 

[Tbone]

Text deleted for posting content banned by Moderators. See warning in post above.

Ngatimozart

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The above map is from WWII and shows Australia compared with Europe as at that time to the same scale. I posted it to highlight what most here already know: that enormous distance and range are the critical factors that have dictated the development and history of the RAN. This is why I strongly support SSNs for the RAN. Very few SSKs have enough range to circumnavigate Australia once, never mind to reach potential flashpoints in SE Asia without refueling along the way.

I haven't commented much here on the debate over the future of the RAN surface fleet, but in light of the above map, I have a few thoughts:
1. Australia also needs surface combatants with long range, at least 5000nm, preferably more.
2. If the Ukraine - Russia conflict in the Black Sea is any guide, the need for substantial SAM defences on warships is increasing.
3. From a constructability, operability and economy viewpoint, we ought to be building ships in larger class numbers.
4. There is a pressing need to increase hull numbers of major surface combatants in the RAN.
5. All of this suggests the need for more "full sized" frigates and destroyers for the RAN, nor corvettes.

Based on this, my broad views on what the RAN should build are as follows:
1. Accept Navantia offer to build 3 more destroyers ASAP. These should be the latest iteration (AWD with updated components) and built in Spain for economy and so as not to disrupt local builds. Effectively this is the "catch-up" build.
2. Proceed ASAP with local production of 6 Hunter Class frigates. Do not interrupt or change the build.
3. Accept BAE offer to develop AA/SSM version of Hunter. Build six to follow immediately after the six Hunters. Keep engines etc in common with Hunters to minimise design change as much as possible. i.e. build 12 similar hulls.
4. Keep building modified Arafura OPVs for patrol, mining etc.

In all cases the aim is to build a small number of classes, in large enough numbers to get some economy of scale (6+) and focus on large surface units. All of 1, 2 and 3 would be equipped commonly with local 3D radar, SH60, SM2, ESSM, NSM, and Tomahawk to get as much commonality in weapons fit as possible. Whatever their flaws, existing designs would be stuck to as much as possible, to avoid delay from new designs.

I haven't gone for corvettes at all. I assume for six corvettes the RAN could get 3 AWDs. My 2 cents.

 

[ADMk2]

View attachment 50081
The above map is from WWII and shows Australia compared with Europe as at that time to the same scale. I posted it to highlight what most here already know: that enormous distance and range are the critical factors that have dictated the development and history of the RAN. This is why I strongly support SSNs for the RAN. Very few SSKs have enough range to circumnavigate Australia once, never mind to reach potential flashpoints in SE Asia without refueling along the way.

I haven't commented much here on the debate over the future of the RAN surface fleet, but in light of the above map, I have a few thoughts:
1. Australia also needs surface combatants with long range, at least 5000nm, preferably more.
2. If the Ukraine - Russia conflict in the Black Sea is any guide, the need for substantial SAM defences on warships is increasing.
3. From a constructability, reliability and economy viewpoint, we ought to be building ships in larger class numbers.
4. There is a pressing need to increase hull numbers of major surface combatants in the RAN.
5. All of this suggests the need for more "full sized" frigates and destroyers for the RAN, nor corvettes.

Based on this, my broad views on what the RAN should build are as follows:
1. Accept Navantia offer to build 3 more destroyers ASAP. These should be the latest iteration (AWD with updated components) and built in Spain for economy and so as not to disrupt local builds. Effectively this is the "catch-up" build.
2. Proceed ASAP with local production of 6 Hunter Class frigates. Do not interrupt or change the build.
3. Accept BAE offer to develop AA/SSM version of Hunter. Build six to follow immediately after the six Hunters. Keep engines etc in common with Hunters to minimise design change as much as possible. i.e. build 12 similar hulls.
4. Keep building modified Arafura OPVs for patrol, mining etc.

In all cases the aim is to build a small number of classes, in large enough numbers to get some economy of scale (6+) and focus on large surface units. All of 1, 2 and 3 would be equipped commonly with local 3D radar, SH60, SM2, ESSM, NSM, and Tomahawk to get as much commonality in weapons fit as possible. Whatever their flaws, existing designs would be stuck to as much as possible, to avoid delay from new designs.

I haven't gone for corvettes at all. I assume for six corvettes the RAN could get 3 AWDs. My 2 cents.

The whole point of the Corvette idea is to get more capability to RAN than it is presently capable of generating, in-service as quickly as possible. I don’t think anyone is debating the merits of a Corvette design versus for instance an Air Warfare Destroyer, Hunter class frigate or even an ANZAC frigate in terms of combat capability, range, performance and so on. Conversely I don’t think there is much of an argument that a modern Corvette ordered next week, would (everything else being equal) be delivered before an AWD similarly ordered next week…

The driving philosophy therefore behind the Corvette concept is ‘you fight with what you have’ and the Corvette idea centres on the belief that actual hulls fitted out with their combat systems could be delivered in as little as 3 years, with such a belief based on actual offers that have been made, ie: Navantia’s offer to the Hellenic navy and that such rapid delivery is necessary in our current strategic environment.

Spain's Navantia Proposing Two New Frigate Designs to the Hellenic Navy - Naval News

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia is proposing two new and modern designs for the Hellenic Navy frigate requirement: The F110 Frigates, currently being designed for the Spanish Navy are part of a wider package offer by the shipbuilder with full support of the Spanish government.

www.navalnews.com

All the ideas constantly tossed up “more missiles on Hunters, AWD’s, Arafuras” more and better guns, more subs etc are all being examined by SME’s. To varying degrees they may be implemented but even so, they will leave us with the exact same sized force we have now. None of them will expand RAN in the next 5 -7 years and yet, there may well be an urgent need to do so.

“Perfect is the enemy of good enough“ as they say, perhaps our current strategic environment may force Government and RAN to learn that lesson…

 

[Redlands18]

The whole point of the Corvette idea is to get more capability to RAN than it is presently capable of generating, in-service as quickly as possible. I don’t think anyone is debating the merits of a Corvette design versus for instance an Air Warfare Destroyer, Hunter class frigate or even an ANZAC frigate in terms of combat capability, range, performance and so on. Conversely I don’t think there is much of an argument that a modern Corvette ordered next week, would (everything else being equal) be delivered before an AWD similarly ordered next week…

The driving philosophy therefore behind the Corvette concept is ‘you fight with what you have’ and the Corvette idea centres on the belief that actual hulls fitted out with their combat systems could be delivered in as little as 3 years, with such a belief based on actual offers that have been made, ie: Navantia’s offer to the Hellenic navy and that such rapid delivery is necessary in our current strategic environment.

Spain's Navantia Proposing Two New Frigate Designs to the Hellenic Navy - Naval News

Spanish shipbuilder Navantia is proposing two new and modern designs for the Hellenic Navy frigate requirement: The F110 Frigates, currently being designed for the Spanish Navy are part of a wider package offer by the shipbuilder with full support of the Spanish government.

www.navalnews.com

All the ideas constantly tossed up “more missiles on Hunters, AWD’s, Arafuras” more and better guns, more subs etc are all being examined by SME’s. To varying degrees they may be implemented but even so, they will leave us with the exact same sized force we have now. None of them will expand RAN in the next 5 -7 years and yet, there may well be an urgent need to do so.

“Perfect is the enemy of good enough“ as they say, perhaps our current strategic environment may force Government and RAN to learn that lesson…

Naval Group Begins Construction of Greece's 2nd FDI Belharra class Frigate (overtdefense.com)
Didn't get selected though, Naval Group was, with 3+1 Belharra class Frigates.

 

[John Fedup]

View attachment 50081
The above map is from WWII and shows Australia compared with Europe as at that time to the same scale. I posted it to highlight what most here already know: that enormous distance and range are the critical factors that have dictated the development and history of the RAN. This is why I strongly support SSNs for the RAN. Very few SSKs have enough range to circumnavigate Australia once, never mind to reach potential flashpoints in SE Asia without refueling along the way.

I haven't commented much here on the debate over the future of the RAN surface fleet, but in light of the above map, I have a few thoughts:
1. Australia also needs surface combatants with long range, at least 5000nm, preferably more.
2. If the Ukraine - Russia conflict in the Black Sea is any guide, the need for substantial SAM defences on warships is increasing.
3. From a constructability, operability and economy viewpoint, we ought to be building ships in larger class numbers.
4. There is a pressing need to increase hull numbers of major surface combatants in the RAN.
5. All of this suggests the need for more "full sized" frigates and destroyers for the RAN, nor corvettes.

Based on this, my broad views on what the RAN should build are as follows:
1. Accept Navantia offer to build 3 more destroyers ASAP. These should be the latest iteration (AWD with updated components) and built in Spain for economy and so as not to disrupt local builds. Effectively this is the "catch-up" build.
2. Proceed ASAP with local production of 6 Hunter Class frigates. Do not interrupt or change the build.
3. Accept BAE offer to develop AA/SSM version of Hunter. Build six to follow immediately after the six Hunters. Keep engines etc in common with Hunters to minimise design change as much as possible. i.e. build 12 similar hulls.
4. Keep building modified Arafura OPVs for patrol, mining etc.

In all cases the aim is to build a small number of classes, in large enough numbers to get some economy of scale (6+) and focus on large surface units. All of 1, 2 and 3 would be equipped commonly with local 3D radar, SH60, SM2, ESSM, NSM, and Tomahawk to get as much commonality in weapons fit as possible. Whatever their flaws, existing designs would be stuck to as much as possible, to avoid delay from new designs.

I haven't gone for corvettes at all. I assume for six corvettes the RAN could get 3 AWDs. My 2 cents.

Very informative graphic for the geographically challenged.

 

[Volkodav]

PBs and now OPVs, as well as the Hobart's, are examples of poor value for money, defence on the cheap. In all cases they were the smallest, cheapest to procure, minimum acceptable option.

In each case, a larger, more durable and capable design would have been better value for money, been easier to sustain, over a longer service life. Not requiring a major midlife upgrade to expensively fill capability short falls would likely also has been the case.

 

[ADMk2]

Naval Group Begins Construction of Greece's 2nd FDI Belharra class Frigate (overtdefense.com)
Didn't get selected though, Naval Group was, with 3+1 Belharra class Frigates.

Indeed, so how feasible it may be is still only theoretical at best. It is an example (as is their current offer to RAN) of a contractor believing it can be done.

Whether that is possible, affordable or desirable, remains to be seen.

 

[hauritz]

I am not a fan of Corvette sized ships. I think we need to heed the lessons we gained with the ANZACs where we bought a smallish frigate but very quickly found ourselves having to add more weapons, sensors and capability. The Poms got it right with the Type 31. If you can't afford a warship with all the bells and whistles at least get a big hull capable of accepting future upgrades.

 

[GregorZ]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I’m quite impressed with the level of knowledge here and was hoping to bounce this idea off some of you, please be gentle!

I think that the Mogami may be a good fit for the RAN. A small stealth GP frigate that is pretty cheap with small crew comparable to other FFGs.

Could it be a solution to the corvette question that is being asked? Also may be a credible mine warfare ship as well?

The ship looks well armed for its size with a 5” gun, 8 ASM (maybe could fit up to 16 NSM?), torpedo tubes, 16 cell mk41 VLS, Searam (change to phalanx?) and helicopter.

I’m not to sure about how capable the systems and sensors are as configured for Japan. I would assume that the RAN would want 9LV, a variant of CEAFAR and CEC? Or could they operate as is?

The crew size looks great at only 90. This thing appears to be able to lay and also detect mines. It’s also able to operate unmanned vehicles through a rear ramp under the helicopter landing which sounds like a great capability.

A concern I have is that I have been unable to find any info on the range and endurance though and this is highly important for RAN use, so this may be a show stopper if it’s not very good.

Could any of our shipyards build this relatively soon? If we could build this cost effectively maybe the RNZN may be interested as an ANZAC replacement.