Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Tbone]

Can we please just upgun the Arafura class.. the only vessels being delivered this decade and would be a great ship patrolling the grey zones around the pacific islands, PNG and Timor.
The should have the following weapons fit out.. 30mm gun our front.. Sea Ram position where the current 25mm typhoon is located.. 4x NSM positioned midship.
This would give this class an air defence system, an anti ship and land attack capability.. and an anti drone capability.
It would be an easy fit the ship is capable of carrying these weapons the sea ram comes with its own radar and the 30mm air burst is such a great weapon for the normal conditions this ship might face.
On top of this you could put containers under the deck for the following.., Strix long range drone… speartooth under water drone.. hell there is room for containerised towed array and torpedo tubes.
I’m not saying these ships go into the South China Sea but these ships are perfect for surveillance, supporting army landing crafts, escorting supply lines, monitoring underwater for subs closer to home. Adding punch to patrol boats got surging. Supporting pacific nations.
Why aren’t we giving these low manning vessels punch ??

 

[seaspear]

These vessels were meant to operate u.a.v,s under project 129 likely the Schiebel s-100 cap copter, with events learnt from the conflict in Ukraine the Strix seems to have more capability a cam copter would be useful for regular missions

 

[iambuzzard]

What I love about the whole project is it Is an 1800t warship soon to be in-service with the Royal Australian Navy and it is out gunned by this…

View attachment 51656

GOLD!

 

[Wombat000]

I skipped Grey Zone 101, so please bear with me:

Pushing, shoving, bumping, even water cannons are one thing, they’re bully tactics but arguably ‘non-lethal’ in intent.
it gives the govt in question an escape clause if goes wrong and an excuse to de-escalate.

Overmatching with a Frigate means potential bully tactics damage, to an expensive much more capable vessel.
….unless you actually intend to open fire.
THAT would be a massive escalation wouldnt it?
Fear of escalation is what makes grey zone tactics successful & why they do it.

would it be wise to do close quarter physical contact with a GPF against a beefed up coast guard ship from the opposition?

I think the point of the Arafura even in its present state, is to run the scrum & wait for the bad guys to actually escalate it.
im obviously no naval architect, but I’m guessing it’d hold its own v a Chinese coast guard boat.

 

[Stampede]

The Capes and the Arafuras are only constabulary vessels. They are designed for illegal fishing, search and rescue, and immigration control where interactions are uncontested. Which is fine as there is plenty (sometimes too much) of this type of work.

The first act in grey warfare is to move civilian boats into an area, such as fishing boats. These scenarios require potentially contested boarding (hostile crews with small arms that threaten to shoot back). When I was doing boarding parties we never executed a contested boarding as the risk of a casualty was too high.

Basic principle in any conflict situation is over match. An ECCP/Arafura is fine against an unarmed opponent. As soon as weapons are involved it becomes necessary to go up in weight.

In these situations we used a helo to maintain the high ground with special forces troops. This required resourcing from a frigate. HMAS Stewart did the Pong Su and had to run it down at high speed off the coast of NSW after four days chasing.

End outcome is grey warfare requires large surface combatants. They have the speed and the helo capability needed for this type of work. The ECCPs and Arafuras can't do this. The Arafura's might have been capable of this type of work if they had a hangar and a fully rated flight deck, plus a better top speed. But they don't.

The second act in grey warfare is to move in a coast guard cutter or Naval corvette to provide protection to the fishing boats. In these cases the ECCPs and Arafuras are well out of their depth and you need a frigate with some heavy weapons to push back. This is where the Philippines find themselves at the moment, and unfortunately can't escalate to a frigate.

I am of the view that grey warfare will come to our waters in time. Christmas/Cocos islands, great barrier reef, north west shelf and Abrolhos would all be targets. Our GPFs will be employed to deal with it. Good thing we are getting 11 of them as they will be busy.

An informative post.

Not underestimating the importance of over match for any given situation.
Small, medium or big and everything in-between.
However re the up gun the Arafura thing, I take it as what extra response / duties could the Arafura class realistically take on with a modest increase in armament compared to their current fitout.
A modest increase in its overmatch ability at the lower end.
To increase the scenario's where we don't have to call upon a frigate of other defence assets.

Those extra 7 to 11 General purpose frigates are still way off in the distance.

For the OPV / Corvette aspiration I always thought we bought the wrong ship, but at the end of the day we have what we have, so lets get the Arafura Class in the water providing service to the Commonwealth and ensure we get the most out of the Class pending the arrival of all that is planned for Navy going forward.

2025 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 are looking a bit light on for active fleet numbers!

The OPV's will in all likelihood have to bat above their weight.



Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

I skipped Grey Zone 101, so please bear with me:

Pushing, shoving, bumping, even water cannons are one thing, they’re bully tactics but arguably ‘non-lethal’ in intent.
it gives the govt in question an escape clause if goes wrong and an excuse to de-escalate.

Overmatching with a Frigate means potential bully tactics damage, to an expensive much more capable vessel.
….unless you actually intend to open fire.
THAT would be a massive escalation wouldnt it?
Fear of escalation is what makes grey zone tactics successful & why they do it.

would it be wise to do close quarter physical contact with a GPF against a beefed up coast guard ship from the opposition?

I think the point of the Arafura even in its present state, is to run the scrum & wait for the bad guys to actually escalate it.
im obviously no naval architect, but I’m guessing it’d hold its own v a Chinese coast guard boat.

Mmm. So what do you do when the other ship is determined to ram into you. Speed remains the best advantage to enable manoeuvre (dance like a butterfly as a great boxer once said). If things are getting really difficult then ropes/nets in the water in front of them gets the point across. Toowoomba learnt this the hard way.

Large combat ships also have a whole range of ecm measures (including aesa radars that can function in eye of mordor mode) that can play havoc/wreck another ships electronic/electrical systems at close range. Cutters and corvettes aren't so good here and may not have all the necessary hardening. These can be debilitating if used correctly (this is the sting like a bee bit).

Neither of the above require any shots to be fired, but the bigger platforms can do them whereas the small ones can't.

In general, when ships collide, the damage is usually extensive. Look at the USS Fitzgerald and John S McCain and Norwegian frigate Helge. It's a dangerous game for both ships. For the most part, the bigger ship has the advantage in a dust up. Its no suprise that each of the above took on a tanker and lost in each case.

 

[swerve]

I skipped Grey Zone 101, so please bear with me:

Pushing, shoving, bumping, even water cannons are one thing, they’re bully tactics but arguably ‘non-lethal’ in intent.
it gives the govt in question an escape clause if goes wrong and an excuse to de-escalate.

Overmatching with a Frigate means potential bully tactics damage, to an expensive much more capable vessel.
….unless you actually intend to open fire.
THAT would be a massive escalation wouldnt it?
Fear of escalation is what makes grey zone tactics successful & why they do it.

would it be wise to do close quarter physical contact with a GPF against a beefed up coast guard ship from the opposition?

I think the point of the Arafura even in its present state, is to run the scrum & wait for the bad guys to actually escalate it.
im obviously no naval architect, but I’m guessing it’d hold its own v a Chinese coast guard boat.

The Royal Navy deployed frigates to counter Icelandic coast guard vessels in the so-called Cod Wars of the 1970s. Some of them sustained serious damage. HMS Eastbourne (a Type 12 frigate) was relegated to harbour training due to hull damage after one ramming incident, & others needed major repair, e.g. a new bow for HMS Yarmouth.

 

[SammyC]

An informative post.

Not underestimating the importance of over match for any given situation.
Small, medium or big and everything in-between.
However re the up gun the Arafura thing, I take it as what extra response / duties could the Arafura class realistically take on with a modest increase in armament compared to their current fitout.
A modest increase in its overmatch ability at the lower end.
To increase the scenario's where we don't have to call upon a frigate of other defence assets.

Those extra 7 to 11 General purpose frigates are still way off in the distance.

For the OPV / Corvette aspiration I always thought we bought the wrong ship, but at the end of the day we have what we have, so lets get the Arafura Class in the water providing service to the Commonwealth and ensure we get the most out of the Class pending the arrival of all that is planned for Navy going forward.

2025 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 29 are looking a bit light on for active fleet numbers!

The OPV's will in all likelihood have to bat above their weight.



Cheers S

I get your point on up armouring, and yes I'm amongst the first to say the Arafura should have a proper sized gun up front. The typhoon is embarasing.

The problem I have with fitting strike missiles and the like to an Arafura is it can't defend adequately. Major combatants have a range of complex defences, including ecm, essm, SM2 and nulka that cannot be fitted to a small OPV hull. And even then the major combatant will be under duress if attacked. Searam is better than a Phalanx, but by itself It's still a hail mary. The sword and shield go together, it's not wise to just have the sword.

A strike packed OPV, sent into harms way and potentially against other surface combatants or against hostile aircraft is going to loose. It becomes a suicide mission. Something you do when all other options have been expended, as that crew will not be coming back.

The OPVs are best used in the offshore surveillance mode (which is what they were made for). This is an important function and takes the workload off the bigger ships.

If they are to be upgraded, then they would make great drone platforms. These could service several helo drones, bluebottles, spearfishes and/or ghost sharks. They could form a very useful anti submarine picket or mine clearance force.

They could perhaps be used as a stand in LOCSV for a major combatant. You could get a substantial number of missile containers on that flight deck.

 

[OldNavy63]

I get your point on up armouring, and yes I'm amongst the first to say the Arafura should have a proper sized gun up front. The typhoon is embarasing.……….

They could perhaps be used as a stand in LOCSV for a major combatant. You could get a substantial number of missile containers on that flight deck.

I agree with all but your last comment @SammyC, the Arafura’s would be struggling as LOCSVs WRT range and speed.

 

[Tbone]

I get your point on up armouring, and yes I'm amongst the first to say the Arafura should have a proper sized gun up front. The typhoon is embarasing.

The problem I have with fitting strike missiles and the like to an Arafura is it can't defend adequately. Major combatants have a range of complex defences, including ecm, essm, SM2 and nulka that cannot be fitted to a small OPV hull. And even then the major combatant will be under duress if attacked. Searam is better than a Phalanx, but by itself It's still a hail mary. The sword and shield go together, it's not wise to just have the sword.

A strike packed OPV, sent into harms way and potentially against other surface combatants or against hostile aircraft is going to loose. It becomes a suicide mission. Something you do when all other options have been expended, as that crew will not be coming back.

The OPVs are best used in the offshore surveillance mode (which is what they were made for). This is an important function and takes the workload off the bigger ships.

If they are to be upgraded, then they would make great drone platforms. These could service several helo drones, bluebottles, spearfishes and/or ghost sharks. They could form a very useful anti submarine picket or mine clearance force.

They could perhaps be used as a stand in LOCSV for a major combatant. You could get a substantial number of missile containers on that flight deck.

I understand your point but the idea isn’t to put these up against the Chinese navy.. upgunning thrn to sea ram 30mm and NSM with uav is to give these vessel a capable defence capability which it would.. it’s not going up against a destroyer but a chin uses coastguard or into a hostile Chinese fishing fleet.. give government alternatives in conflict… giving this vessel a anti submarine capability has it searching waters nearer to Australia .. it has so much potential and could at least fill a gap until 2034.. base them out of Lombrum png and Stanley in Fiji and crew them with Pacific Islanders under Australian control.. regional presence with a bite and send China a message these are our waters

 

[Todjaeger]

I understand your point but the idea isn’t to put these up against the Chinese navy.. upgunning thrn to sea ram 30mm and NSM with uav is to give these vessel a capable defence capability which it would.. it’s not going up against a destroyer but a chin uses coastguard or into a hostile Chinese fishing fleet.. give government alternatives in conflict… giving this vessel a anti submarine capability has it searching waters nearer to Australia .. it has so much potential and could at least fill a gap until 2034.. base them out of Lombrum png and Stanley in Fiji and crew them with Pacific Islanders under Australian control.. regional presence with a bite and send China a message these are our waters

Umm... No, upgunning them as suggested would not provide them with a viable defence capability, and arguably it would actually do the opposite.

As it stands now, an Arafura-class OPV, armed with a M242 25mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting can present a threat to unarmed vessels, though if the crew of a vessel in contact with the OPV has small arms, then the OPV might still have problems.

Trying to tack on SeaRAM and/or NSM just increases the potential threat (and therefore value as a target) of an OPV, so that instead of it getting ignored by actual combat forces, it gets engaged with/by actual warships, subs, and/or armed combat aircraft. In short, forces which will significantly overmatch the OPV in capabilities, and which an OPV might, at best, have a sort of "Hail Mary," defence against. There mere presence of NSM aboard, which can provide an anti-shipping as well as land attack capability, would easily justify hostile forces targeting it with their own AShM. As has been mentioned in this thread in the past repeated, as well as just recently, trying to fit and use such armament aboard an OPV would likely make any such voyage a one-way trip for the ship and crew.

There is also an honest question about just how much additional armament could be fitted, whether the armaments could be feasibly integrated so as to be effective, and what it would end up costing (in both funding and time).

Right now, I would suggest that rather than try and come up with new/more ways to use the OPV's, as well as what major changes (if any) to make, we wait until they actually enter service and/or more is known about why they ended up being so delayed getting brought into service. We already know that the designs were intended to be OPV's and not actual, frontline combat warships. This means that from the outset, the design was unlikely to have included a number of the survivability and damage control and redundancy features normally found aboard modern warships. If as has been suggested, it turned out that the Lurssen design did not mean Australian ship standards for a number of systems, I would very much want to know before spending any more coin packing in kit that is just going it make it more of a target in the event of hostilities.

As it stands now, it appears that Lurssen's design might not be suitable to serve as the basis for a number of other supporting RAN vessels like those for MCM and hydro survey. It is also possible that the experience with Lurssen might have damaged the company's chances for future Australian design work.

Regarding the suggestion of making the OPV design into one capable of ASW ops... Unless the design itself just ended up naturally being a 'quiet' hull, then IMO there is no realist and viable way to make it into a worthwhile ASW platform. A 'good' ASW surface vessel requires more than just being fitted with a sonar and ASW weapons like LWT's. The hull/machinery have to be comparatively quiet, so that the vessel itself does not radiate noise (excessively) which is picked up by/interferes with the sonars being used to listen for hostile subs. It does no good to try and hunt for an underwater sound source when there is the equivalent of a rock concert nearby under the water.

As for using Pacific Islander personnel to flesh out the crews of the OPV's... I rather suspect this is not a viable notion. IIRC it is the RAN providing the technical personnel to the various Pacific Island Forum member-states who have received patrol boats. This suggests to me that the Pacific Islands do not really have a surplus of suitable personnel to serve aboard naval vessels, particularly if technical personnel are needed. It would be nice if Australia could help these nations become more self-sufficient in terms of meeting their own defence and naval capability requirements, but I do not want to see Australia expending resources to develop technical personnel for other nations, have Australia itself already is facing shortages.

 

[Bob53]

Umm... No, upgunning them as suggested would not provide them with a viable defence capability, and arguably it would actually do the opposite.

As it stands now, an Arafura-class OPV, armed with a M242 25mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting can present a threat to unarmed vessels, though if the crew of a vessel in contact with the OPV has small arms, then the OPV might still have problems.

Trying to tack on SeaRAM and/or NSM just increases the potential threat (and therefore value as a target) of an OPV, so that instead of it getting ignored by actual combat forces, it gets engaged with/by actual warships, subs, and/or armed combat aircraft. In short, forces which will significantly overmatch the OPV in capabilities, and which an OPV might, at best, have a sort of "Hail Mary," defence against. There mere presence of NSM aboard, which can provide an anti-shipping as well as land attack capability, would easily justify hostile forces targeting it with their own AShM. As has been mentioned in this thread in the past repeated, as well as just recently, trying to fit and use such armament aboard an OPV would likely make any such voyage a one-way trip for the ship and crew.

There is also an honest question about just how much additional armament could be fitted, whether the armaments could be feasibly integrated so as to be effective, and what it would end up costing (in both funding and time).

Right now, I would suggest that rather than try and come up with new/more ways to use the OPV's, as well as what major changes (if any) to make, we wait until they actually enter service and/or more is known about why they ended up being so delayed getting brought into service. We already know that the designs were intended to be OPV's and not actual, frontline combat warships. This means that from the outset, the design was unlikely to have included a number of the survivability and damage control and redundancy features normally found aboard modern warships. If as has been suggested, it turned out that the Lurssen design did not mean Australian ship standards for a number of systems, I would very much want to know before spending any more coin packing in kit that is just going it make it more of a target in the event of hostilities.

As it stands now, it appears that Lurssen's design might not be suitable to serve as the basis for a number of other supporting RAN vessels like those for MCM and hydro survey. It is also possible that the experience with Lurssen might have damaged the company's chances for future Australian design work.

Regarding the suggestion of making the OPV design into one capable of ASW ops... Unless the design itself just ended up naturally being a 'quiet' hull, then IMO there is no realist and viable way to make it into a worthwhile ASW platform. A 'good' ASW surface vessel requires more than just being fitted with a sonar and ASW weapons like LWT's. The hull/machinery have to be comparatively quiet, so that the vessel itself does not radiate noise (excessively) which is picked up by/interferes with the sonars being used to listen for hostile subs. It does no good to try and hunt for an underwater sound source when there is the equivalent of a rock concert nearby under the water.

As for using Pacific Islander personnel to flesh out the crews of the OPV's... I rather suspect this is not a viable notion. IIRC it is the RAN providing the technical personnel to the various Pacific Island Forum member-states who have received patrol boats. This suggests to me that the Pacific Islands do not really have a surplus of suitable personnel to serve aboard naval vessels, particularly if technical personnel are needed. It would be nice if Australia could help these nations become more self-sufficient in terms of meeting their own defence and naval capability requirements, but I do not want to see Australia expending resources to develop technical personnel for other nations, have Australia itself already is facing shortages.

Sorry but I dont see the theory that if a ship is upgunned it simply becomes a target. I’m not getting on the boat that Arafura get the bells and whistles mentioned but if any RAN ship is present during any form of conflict it’s a legitimate target full stop.

 

[Armchair]

Sorry but I dont see the theory that if a ship is upgunned it simply becomes a target. I’m not getting on the boat that Arafura get the bells and whistles mentioned but if any RAN ship is present during any form of conflict it’s a legitimate target full stop.

This is correct in that a warship with a radar and a communications system (that could, for argument’s sake, also launch RHIBs with SF troops on board) is going to be a target for a hostile force even if that warship has no strike capability. Give that warship strike capability though and it becomes a higher value target (especially if it can’t defend itself).

The apparent ADF solution to the problem Tbone raises is to preposition the distributed strike capability on land (rather than at sea in upgunned OPVs or fast missile boats as others have suggested) but that solution is outside the scope of the RAN thread.

 

[ADMk2]

Umm... No, upgunning them as suggested would not provide them with a viable defence capability, and arguably it would actually do the opposite.

As it stands now, an Arafura-class OPV, armed with a M242 25mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting can present a threat to unarmed vessels, though if the crew of a vessel in contact with the OPV has small arms, then the OPV might still have problems.

Trying to tack on SeaRAM and/or NSM just increases the potential threat (and therefore value as a target) of an OPV, so that instead of it getting ignored by actual combat forces, it gets engaged with/by actual warships, subs, and/or armed combat aircraft. In short, forces which will significantly overmatch the OPV in capabilities, and which an OPV might, at best, have a sort of "Hail Mary," defence against. There mere presence of NSM aboard, which can provide an anti-shipping as well as land attack capability, would easily justify hostile forces targeting it with their own AShM. As has been mentioned in this thread in the past repeated, as well as just recently, trying to fit and use such armament aboard an OPV would likely make any such voyage a one-way trip for the ship and crew.

There is also an honest question about just how much additional armament could be fitted, whether the armaments could be feasibly integrated so as to be effective, and what it would end up costing (in both funding and time).

Right now, I would suggest that rather than try and come up with new/more ways to use the OPV's, as well as what major changes (if any) to make, we wait until they actually enter service and/or more is known about why they ended up being so delayed getting brought into service. We already know that the designs were intended to be OPV's and not actual, frontline combat warships. This means that from the outset, the design was unlikely to have included a number of the survivability and damage control and redundancy features normally found aboard modern warships. If as has been suggested, it turned out that the Lurssen design did not mean Australian ship standards for a number of systems, I would very much want to know before spending any more coin packing in kit that is just going it make it more of a target in the event of hostilities.

As it stands now, it appears that Lurssen's design might not be suitable to serve as the basis for a number of other supporting RAN vessels like those for MCM and hydro survey. It is also possible that the experience with Lurssen might have damaged the company's chances for future Australian design work.

Regarding the suggestion of making the OPV design into one capable of ASW ops... Unless the design itself just ended up naturally being a 'quiet' hull, then IMO there is no realist and viable way to make it into a worthwhile ASW platform. A 'good' ASW surface vessel requires more than just being fitted with a sonar and ASW weapons like LWT's. The hull/machinery have to be comparatively quiet, so that the vessel itself does not radiate noise (excessively) which is picked up by/interferes with the sonars being used to listen for hostile subs. It does no good to try and hunt for an underwater sound source when there is the equivalent of a rock concert nearby under the water.

As for using Pacific Islander personnel to flesh out the crews of the OPV's... I rather suspect this is not a viable notion. IIRC it is the RAN providing the technical personnel to the various Pacific Island Forum member-states who have received patrol boats. This suggests to me that the Pacific Islands do not really have a surplus of suitable personnel to serve aboard naval vessels, particularly if technical personnel are needed. It would be nice if Australia could help these nations become more self-sufficient in terms of meeting their own defence and naval capability requirements, but I do not want to see Australia expending resources to develop technical personnel for other nations, have Australia itself already is facing shortages.

The idea an 1800t warship is going to be “ignored” in a high intensity conflict where AShM’s are being fired is a fantasy.

Everything we put to sea will be at risk. Even if we literally hauled them out of the water and put them on hardstands they may still be attacked.

These things are equipped to a mediocre level even compared to other OPV variants, being poorly equipped sensor- wise with not much more than civilian standard sensor systems and among the most poorly armed such vessels in the world. A casual glance at most OPV variants in the world shows how basically equipped these are.

This is for two reasons. 1. Budget and 2. RAN’s “terror” if they armed these properly their inability to adequately argue the case means these could be mistaken for actual warships by their political masters and could impact their “capital” ship program.

On top of which, we should all recall that RAN’s original plan was to equip them with a much more capable gun system than they currently carry. They were supposed to have a VTOL UAS capability as an integral part of their overall capability package, as well as other multi-mission modules and RAN have even investigated naval SAM capability for them, based on the C Dome news revealed a while back.

A plan that seems to have been executed in just about the most incompetent manner, one could envisage, going literally nowhere, since…

 

[StevoJH]

Honestly, the Arafura should probably really have been something like a stretched River class with a hanger or a (really basic) ship about the size of the US Heritage class or Danish Thetis class.

Aka, They really should have been big enough to have a flight deck rated for a helicopter the size of an SH-60, plus a proper hanger. That doesn't mean they are going to be embarked all the time, but it gives options. Its only steel.

Of course while I'm dreaming, it would probably make sense to plumb the hanger roof with the services required to fit seaRAM/Phalanx on top if required during a conflict. Again, that doesn't mean its going to be fitted.

While OPV's are bigger and more expensive to operate then Patrol boats, they are also more durable in construction and have longer endurance at sea. It would be very interesting to know what the Cape Class are rated for regarding distance from shore and weather conditions.

 

[Todjaeger]

Sorry but I dont see the theory that if a ship is upgunned it simply becomes a target. I’m not getting on the boat that Arafura get the bells and whistles mentioned but if any RAN ship is present during any form of conflict it’s a legitimate target full stop.

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.

 

[Stampede]

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 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.

 

[Todjaeger]

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.

From my POV upgrades to the Arafura-class OPV beyond perhaps fitting a 30 mm to 40 mm gun (if/when the RAN finally decides on one) and perhaps Nulka launchers really are not worthwhile. It might be possible to fit something like a Mk 110 57 mm gun to the OPV design in place of the current 25 mm/Typhoon mounting, but that would also mean that the RAN has to adopt a 57 mm gun in the first place, and this has yet to happen. I would therefore rather seen the OPV's fitted with whatever small calibre rapid fire gun gets adopted for service aboard the Hunter-class frigates, or will see service aboard the SEA 3000 project GP frigates.

AFAIK Australia does not plan to operate Spike NLOS, and is supposed to adopt Spike LR for use from Army vehicles. I would therefore question whether it would be worth the coin required for Australia to adopt another Spike version specifically for use aboard the OPV's. Particularly given that it might give them a strike or AShM capability out to ~32 km, which is still well short of the reach of AShM fitted aboard some PRC "Coast Guard" vessels. If one is seeking capability overmatch in potential grey conflicts with the PRC, then one really needs to go towards full warship fitout.

There remains some question on just what capabilities or capacity the helipads aboard the Arafura-class OPV's are to have. I tend to suspect though, that unless the capability already exists with the design, it would not be practical or efficient in attempting to upgrade the helipad. The fact that the vessel design did not include a hangar from the start was, IMO a mistake as that limited potential options. It might be possible to include stocks of onboard fuel to support lilypadding of naval helicopters brought in by other vessels, but I suspect that would not be a very common occurrence. In order for this to really happen, then either the OPV is operating close enough to a land-based naval helicopter unit, or OPV's are operating in a deployed TF with other RAN vessels. Given the overall lack of weaponry, sensors and DC of the OPV's, I rather doubt they would be deployed to operate with other RAN vessels.

As for all the future projected landing craft which might need escorts in the future... I agree that there could be a need for escorts for them. However, I just do not see the OPV's as ever being an appropriate escort. One of the potential threats the landing craft could need protection from would be aerial threats, which could be hostile aircraft, or AShM, or even shore-based artillery. For the aerial threats, this would likely require an air defence missile capability beyond what could be provided by CIWS and would likely require a short/medium-ranged air defence missile like Sea Ceptor at a minimum. Threats presented by short-based artillery would likely need something like a naval gunfire support capability, which might be able to be met by Spike NLOS (depending on sensor and CMS capability) or would otherwise need medium or large calibre naval guns like 76 mm or 127 mm guns.

In short, if landing craft are headed into an area where escort is needed, then a proper warship should be that escort.

 

[Bluey 006]

Aka, They really should have been big enough to have a flight deck rated for a helicopter the size of an SH-60, plus a proper hanger. That doesn't mean they are going to be embarked all the time, but it gives options. Its only steel.

Of course while I'm dreaming, it would probably make sense to plumb the hanger roof with the services required to fit seaRAM/Phalanx on top if required during a conflict. Again, that doesn't mean its going to be fitted.

While OPV's are bigger and more expensive to operate then Patrol boats, they are also more durable in construction and have longer endurance at sea. It would be very interesting to know what the Cape Class are rated for regarding distance from shore and weather conditions.

I agree with this. OPVs are one of the very few scenarios where I think fitted "for but not with" actually makes sense.

While many here have their hopes pinned on the 7–11 General Purpose Frigates, entirely possible if not probable, like many other programs, this gets "scaled back" or delayed due to some obscure reason or changing priorities. We all hope this isn't the case, but a contingency that should be part of our thinking.

In which case, the OPVs may have a bigger wartime role than we'd like (should a shooting war kick-off). Thus, having the ability to quickly give them more capabilities would be prudent. If we ask ourselves, during a potential future conflict, if we have taken losses and our surface fleet has been degraded, would we up-gun them? If the answer is yes, then fitting them "for but not with" before the fact can be considered preparedness, and money well spent. If the answer is no, then leave them as they are.

That said, I also suggest that the threshold for, "for but not with" on other warfighting capabilities like MFU has well and truly passed. No excuse for not fitting the capabilities now.

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.

Also agree with this.

 

[John Newman]

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 .....