Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

The issue with any suggestion of vessels in the vicinity of the suggested tonnage is range and endurance. There is no point in having a vessel which would act in an escort like capacity if it doesn’t have the range to actually escort in the Australian context. It’s very easy to end up with either a ship that can defend itself and others a bit (but can only do two thirds of the trip) OR a ship that does have the range, but not enough weapons and systems to be useful.

If you want range and endurance you build a larger hull, giving you the room for the extra fuel, stores etc., required. The claim that people make about not having range and endurance is absolute rubbish. Everyone looks at euro corvettes when in fact one can be designed if it used, for example the MEKO 200 hull. Quit looking at euro corvettes and go woe is me because they don't have the range. Of course they don't because the Europeans don't have the vast Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans to patrol.

 

[ngatimozart]

Aimed at noone in particular, keep the partisan politics out of the discussion. You all know better.

 

[vonnoobie]

Ignoring all politics in regards to the 2009 DWP while it wasn't perfect and frankly has any nation ever had a perfect DWP? I doubt it, but at the end of the day it was the best DWP in at least 20 years almost a decade of our next serious one. So while maybe not perfect it was backing a good sized force and industry behind it that would have given us more options today. Quite literally with the 2009 DWP we could have been a few years away from if not launching now the lead vessel of a Collins replacement, Could have had a good sized force of OCV's taking on the minor roles performed by the Anzac's freeing them up, Could have had a standing capable R&D capability to speed up/improve efficiency in works on the Hunters, A work force already trained and experienced to undertake such work, sub contractors already working on other projects in a better position to add on to Hunter's and others with far less lead time and stuffing around. So yes politics aside best it wasn't but realistically to have any major impact it was the best DWP we had that came at the right time. Everything after was bugger all, push it down the line or too damn late.

 

[protoplasm]

Recognising that the Supply and Amphibious ships don't have much in the way of defensive systems but for close range items like Phalanx / Bushmaster and decoys for air and sea threats.
I pose the question, is there a place for a relatively lightly armed combat vessel in the 2000t range with the above defensive systems that has a true helicopter capability ( hangar, flight deck, weapons storage and refuelling capability ) and a medium calibre gun?

If you want range and endurance you build a larger hull, giving you the room for the extra fuel, stores etc., required. The claim that people make about not having range and endurance is absolute rubbish. Everyone looks at euro corvettes when in fact one can be designed if it used, for example the MEKO 200 hull. Quit looking at euro corvettes and go woe is me because they don't have the range. Of course they don't because the Europeans don't have the vast Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans to patrol.

The original post I referred to was Stampede's which did not mention corvette or euro, it posed a tonnage range (2000t) with specific systems including "true helicopter capability". Precious little room will be left for fuel and stores if those capabilities are crammed into a 2000t hull, leading to inevitable compromises in range and endurance. The MEKO 200 hull is a 3000t+ frigate design, not a 2000t lightly armed combat vessel. You are absolutely correct that the solution is to build a larger hull, that's the point. You start with the desired CONOPS, spec the capabilities needed for that and then size the hull to accommodate all that is needed. Inevitably that is going to be larger than 2000t in the Australian context. My point was that if chosen size was 2000t the likely outcome would be significantly compromised for the Australian context.

 

[Stampede]

We both know what was in those documents?

Clearly one of us doesn’t.

Please read the PDFs and show me where the information I’ve referred to and quoted is wrong?

I'll leave that for others to judge.

Cheers S

 

[MickB]

Ignoring all politics in regards to the 2009 DWP while it wasn't perfect and frankly has any nation ever had a perfect DWP? I doubt it, but at the end of the day it was the best DWP in at least 20 years almost a decade of our next serious one. So while maybe not perfect it was backing a good sized force and industry behind it that would have given us more options today. Quite literally with the 2009 DWP we could have been a few years away from if not launching now the lead vessel of a Collins replacement, Could have had a good sized force of OCV's taking on the minor roles performed by the Anzac's freeing them up, Could have had a standing capable R&D capability to speed up/improve efficiency in works on the Hunters, A work force already trained and experienced to undertake such work, sub contractors already working on other projects in a better position to add on to Hunter's and others with far less lead time and stuffing around. So yes politics aside best it wasn't but realistically to have any major impact it was the best DWP we had that came at the right time. Everything after was bugger all, push it down the line or too damn late.

To my mind it does not matter if it is the greatest DWP of all time, if it is not acted upon it is just a waste of time and money.
And in this I look at both political parties.

 

[Stampede]

To my mind it does not matter if it is the greatest DWP of all time, if it is not acted upon it is just a waste of time and money.
And in this I look at both political parties.

What the DWP of 2009 did was really highlight the perceived threat of China back in the day.
Look at the PLAN back then compared to today and what it has planned for the future.
It was in fact a very brave and enlightening document announcing to the public a threat most of the public were unaware of.

It started the conversation and that conversation has stayed with us to today.

How all political parties have responded to this perceived threat in the last 14 years is in my opinion very disappointing.

Acknowledgement without results.

The ADF currently has plans for some formidable capability going forward, I just hope we the time to bring that deterrence on board sooner rather than later.

Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

There seems to be a certain inevitability that Australia will get a second tier warship. The question is when and what will be the process of getting there. Personally I don’t think any variant of the OPV80 Arafura class could really be considered a tier two warship. I think it will take a considerable amount of time to even decide what a tier two ship should resemble in the Australian context.

So far Australia’s track record of selecting designs has been pretty questionable.
Going back to 2016 the Turnbull government confidently announced that we would be getting regionally superior French designed submarines, Hunter frigates and Arafuras. In the 7 years since then we have seen the Attack class submarines abandoned and now questions have been raised as to the suitability of both the Hunter and Arafura vessels.

Australia cannot afford another botch up where we hastily choose yet another design which we then almost instantly regret.

For that reason I think we are largely stuck with our current choices. Building an enlarged version of the Arafura is probably achievable. Adding more missiles to the Hobart and Hunter classes is a good possibility. Might even be possible to add more VLS cells to the ANZACs. But a proper tier two ship entirely suited to Australia’s needs could be a decade or more away.

 

[Volkodav]

We have spent billions on platforms that do not and never have met requirements while losing capabilities we knew we needed to achieve our strategic aims.

The worst part of this is multiple papers, reports and assessments have identified needs and gaps to be addressed. Each one of them has been parked or watered down for political, cost or ideological reasons.

Often great ideas and extremely sensible actions are trashed because of who voiced them, this is insanity.

Many, including me, knock John Howard, but to his credit, he would act on good ideas, even steal (possibly with a new name) entire policies from the opposition and previous governments. He would back flip and cop the flack for doing so, rather than steaming full speed ahead into the rocks. These days, I fear politicians in general are so afraid of the consequences of admitting ideas expoused by the other side have merit, they will blindly tear down everything, good and bad, while painting themselves into the corner policy wise.

Sadly, these days narrative means more than fact, right and wrong, morals and decency just can't hack it against partisanship.

Jelico predicted the navy Australia needed should Japan launch a war of conquest in South East Asia. Chevelle outlined the motorised and mechanised army we would need in a modern war. Williams desperately tried to build the integrated airforce Australia needed, while Gobell pushed for a seperate Fleet Air Arm and carriers. All of them were proven right, all of them were ignored, Australia paid in blood.

There are a great many detailed papers based on strategic realities that have been shelved or ignored. Occasionally they, in particular the very perceptive, difficult to ignore ones, are rebutted and replaced by fairy tale works that pretend the strategic reality doesn't exist.

The fairy tales can always be traced to elitist interests, be they private business, or dare I say, the equally bad elitist left. Both are, though on opposite sides of the spectrum, heavily beholden to foreign interests. Follow the money.

 

[old faithful]

Ahhh the good old DWP.
Why anyone gets excited or dissapointed over these "drugs and mirror" fairy tail documents, I'll never understand.
What ever they are supposed to be, never ever eventuate. Bits and pieces sometimes come to fruition, but the documents themselves have never been followed up to reality in my lifetime, and I don't think they ever will be.
They seem to be recommendation documents, so flexible, that they might as well have not been written in the 1st place.

 

[Volkodav]

Ahhh the good old DWP.
Why anyone gets excited or dissapointed over these "drugs and mirror" fairy tail documents, I'll never understand.
What ever they are supposed to be, never ever eventuate. Bits and pieces sometimes come to fruition, but the documents themselves have never been followed up to reality in my lifetime, and I don't think they ever will be.
They seem to be recommendation documents, so flexible, that they might as well have not been written in the 1st place.

Because it's how the system is meant to work. Define the problem, collect information, analyse, determine the best way forward, implement, check, repeat.

If you buy shit, or even really sexy Gucci gear, without a plan built on an underlying strategy, you end up with the wrong stuff. You waste time, money and degrade capability.

You end up having to cut, delay, cancel, replace early, .... Sound familiar?

There hasn't been a clear coherent plan carried to fruition (for the most part) since the late 80s.

 

[Wombat000]

DWPs are no longer a thing.
They were random activities often performed by new governments of all persuasion.
They have been superseded by Biennial Defence Reviews.

 

[ngatimozart]

The original post I referred to was Stampede's which did not mention corvette or euro, it posed a tonnage range (2000t) with specific systems including "true helicopter capability". Precious little room will be left for fuel and stores if those capabilities are crammed into a 2000t hull, leading to inevitable compromises in range and endurance. The MEKO 200 hull is a 3000t+ frigate design, not a 2000t lightly armed combat vessel. You are absolutely correct that the solution is to build a larger hull, that's the point. You start with the desired CONOPS, spec the capabilities needed for that and then size the hull to accommodate all that is needed. Inevitably that is going to be larger than 2000t in the Australian context. My point was that if chosen size was 2000t the likely outcome would be significantly compromised for the Australian context.

3,800 tonnes displacement is a very small frigate in todays world. Most frigates now are 6 - 9000 tonnes displacement. This comes back to the argument of what is and what isn't a cruiser / destroyer / frigate / corvette. If you stick with the current AUCANZUK definition then you have problems because in AU case it will have a frigate that is larger than its destroyers. So how do you define what is what? Nomenclature is important, but the definitions more so. This is a problem that is besetting the world's navies today. Out of the four types I listed above, only one isn't from the age of sail.

 

[devo99]

3,800 tonnes displacement is a very small frigate in todays world. Most frigates now are 6 - 9000 tonnes displacement. This comes back to the argument of what is and what isn't a cruiser / destroyer / frigate / corvette. If you stick with the current AUCANZUK definition then you have problems because in AU case it will have a frigate that is larger than its destroyers. So how do you define what is what? Nomenclature is important, but the definitions more so. This is a problem that is besetting the world's navies today. Out of the four types I listed above, only one isn't from the age of sail.

In my opinion the definitions of words such as cruiser, destroyer, frigate and corvette should be based more on their capabilities and intended role with size and displacement being a byproduct rather than size and displacement themselves being defining factors. This is because there has been a continuous trend of increasing size going back to the emergence of destroyers and the re-emergence of the term frigate which would require the definitions to regularly be changed. Not only this but we have previous cases of destroyers being re-designated as frigates due to their role and capability being changed, most notable for the RAN being the Q-class destroyers turning into Type 15 ASW frigates after their 1953-57 refits.

 

[swerve]

If you want range and endurance you build a larger hull, giving you the room for the extra fuel, stores etc., required. The claim that people make about not having range and endurance is absolute rubbish. Everyone looks at euro corvettes when in fact one can be designed if it used, for example the MEKO 200 hull. Quit looking at euro corvettes and go woe is me because they don't have the range. Of course they don't because the Europeans don't have the vast Pacific, Indian, and Southern Oceans to patrol.

The French do, & they built the Floreals: 3000 tons, 9000 sea miles at 15 knots. Part of their role was taken over by the La Fayette class, which can dawdle along at 12 knots over the same distance, & they're now working on a long range variant of the European Patrol Corvette.

And then there's the Danish Thetis class, designed for long endurance Arctic patrol: 8700 nm at 15 knots, 60 days endurance.

As you say: if range is wanted, they can design it.

 

[old faithful]

Because it's how the system is meant to work. Define the problem, collect information, analyse, determine the best way forward, implement, check, repeat.

If you buy shit, or even really sexy Gucci gear, without a plan built on an underlying strategy, you end up with the wrong stuff. You waste time, money and degrade capability.

You end up having to cut, delay, cancel, replace early, .... Sound familiar?

There hasn't been a clear coherent plan carried to fruition (for the most part) since the late 80s.

Of course there is meant to be a plan, it's just that in every defence white paper I have ever taken notice of, (since H. Whites in 1992) they have never been followed.
The papers seem to be done in order to be seen to be doing something, pretty much like all government plans regarding infrastructure.

 

[Redlands18]

The French do, & they built the Floreals: 3000 tons, 9000 sea miles at 15 knots. Part of their role was taken over by the La Fayette class, which can dawdle along at 12 knots over the same distance, & they're now working on a long range variant of the European Patrol Corvette.

And then there's the Danish Thetis class, designed for long endurance Arctic patrol: 8700 nm at 15 knots, 60 days endurance.

As you say: if range is wanted, they can design it.

You don't have to go past the Anzacs 7000nm@18kt or the modernized version the A200 7200nm@16kt.

 

[Stuart M]

3,800 tonnes displacement is a very small frigate in todays world. Most frigates now are 6 - 9000 tonnes displacement. This comes back to the argument of what is and what isn't a cruiser / destroyer / frigate / corvette. If you stick with the current AUCANZUK definition then you have problems because in AU case it will have a frigate that is larger than its destroyers. So how do you define what is what? Nomenclature is important, but the definitions more so. This is a problem that is besetting the world's navies today. Out of the four types I listed above, only one isn't from the age of sail.

I think people get too caught up in this sort of thing. Go back to using rates as the basis for classification? after all what was a frigate if not 5th or 6th rate as opposed to a 1st rate Ship 'o' the Line?

For example, if we call a patrol/GP frigate like the ANZAC's a 6th rate and an ASW/AAW frigate like the Type26 a 5th rate then everyone knows what they are and job done.

Corvettes could go back to being unrated given the mission sets and the generally limited armament and potential for fluctuating displacements that might occur due to range/endurance requirements.

 

[Volkodav]

Steel is cheap and air is free, most of the cost of the platform is in the combat system.

Laymen believe smaller is cheaper, this is not necessarily the case.

Another factor many don't take into account is the more gear you squeeze into a too small platform, the more crew you need and the more cramped and compromised accodation and common areas become. This impacts recruitment and retention.

 

[vonnoobie]

Steel is cheap and air is free, most of the cost of the platform is in the combat system.

Laymen believe smaller is cheaper, this is not necessarily the case.

Another factor many don't take into account is the more gear you squeeze into a too small platform, the more crew you need and the more cramped and compromised accodation and common areas become. This impacts recruitment and retention.

One only has to look at Denmark to see that, some big bloody ships but not the number of systems you would see on a comparable sized ship, they are low cost and low crewed.