Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[MickB]

While I also like the idea of cheap, highly mobile fast attack craft, the problem in the Australian context is range.
The strate of Hormuz is only 20 NMs wide.

I like any factor that that provides an adversary more diverse problems.
But to operate them in our region they would need to be forward deployed.
This in turn means local basing (with the problem of getting local permission) or some kind of depot ship or both.
And then the base or depot ship itself will become a target so must itself be defended.
Roll on the the problems of forward deployed HIMARs but on a larger scale.

I suppose one could operate then like a strike fighter and send an only self defence armed (weight and space) perhaps slightly larger version of the FAC along as a tanker to extend their range.
Fueling both ways would offer a dramatic increase in range but with added complexity.

 

[Stampede]

I’m starting to wonder what our fleet will look like in the 2030s and beyond.
A lot we already know.
Submarines, Hobarts, Hunters Mogami Arafura and Capes.

Mine warfare and Survey are interesting.
Dedicated ships or a new approach!
Looks like no dedicated vessels for this role like in the past
The same question applies to our big ship fleet.
Supply and Canberra classes plus HMAS Choules.

A bit to unpack here, but I get the vibe big ships are not the flavour of the month going forward.

The two supply ships I’d suggest are safe, but with only two in number it does appear inadequate for the larger type of fleet we intend to build.

As for the three Amphib, I regretfully have the feeling the Army landing craft medium and heavy fleet are their replacement , not a complimentary force.
That being the case ,Choules will be gone within the decade and the LHD’s may be retired sooner rather than later.
Certainly no urgency to arm these ships or explore enhanced aviation capabilities off these platforms.
Constant acknowledgment of the China threat and the challenges of the world we live have not lead to a reflective capital injection of finances to fund both the existing ADF capabilities and the capabilities we wish to introduce.

So Navy going forward
SSNs with some quality destroyers and frigates supporting an army amphibious force

Does not look like the type of balanced force I envisaged some years ago.

Thoughts

Cheer S

 

[SammyC]

I’m starting to wonder what our fleet will look like in the 2030s and beyond.
A lot we already know.
Submarines, Hobarts, Hunters Mogami Arafura and Capes.

Mine warfare and Survey are interesting.
Dedicated ships or a new approach!
Looks like no dedicated vessels for this role like in the past
The same question applies to our big ship fleet.
Supply and Canberra classes plus HMAS Choules.

A bit to unpack here, but I get the vibe big ships are not the flavour of the month going forward.

The two supply ships I’d suggest are safe, but with only two in number it does appear inadequate for the larger type of fleet we intend to build.

As for the three Amphib, I regretfully have the feeling the Army landing craft medium and heavy fleet are their replacement , not a complimentary force.
That being the case ,Choules will be gone within the decade and the LHD’s may be retired sooner rather than later.
Certainly no urgency to arm these ships or explore enhanced aviation capabilities off these platforms.
Constant acknowledgment of the China threat and the challenges of the world we live have not lead to a reflective capital injection of finances to fund both the existing ADF capabilities and the capabilities we wish to introduce.

So Navy going forward
SSNs with some quality destroyers and frigates supporting an army amphibious force

Does not look like the type of balanced force I envisaged some years ago.

Thoughts

Cheer S

From the last national defence strategy. Hydrographic services will be contracted and no longer done in house. I don't think this is the end of the world. The task still gets done.

Mine warfare. This is an area that is rapidly changing. I don't think we will ever again have specialised ships for this purpose. It will become an exclusive drone function. It would not surprise me if we use the Mogami mine hunting UUV more widely, or adapt the ghost shark for this type of work. Given the advancements with drones, this seems appropriate.

The LHDs will remain, but Choules will be replaced by the new LCHs. The NDS was clear on that. I think that is OK. The LCHs have a greater combined capacity and its more distributed.

I think we might consider more oilers when we have the full frigate and destroyer fleet. We don't have the demand at the moment. So perhaps 2040 for this, by which time the current two will be up for replacement.

It is intended to be a focused rather than a ballanced force. Designed to protect sea lanes to/from our neighbours and move land forces north. All built around surveilance, drones and missiles.

 

[Volkodav]

While I also like the idea of cheap, highly mobile fast attack craft, the problem in the Australian context is range.
The strate of Hormuz is only 20 NMs wide.

I like any factor that that provides an adversary more diverse problems.
But to operate them in our region they would need to be forward deployed.
This in turn means local basing (with the problem of getting local permission) or some kind of depot ship or both.
And then the base or depot ship itself will become a target so must itself be defended.
Roll on the the problems of forward deployed HIMARs but on a larger scale.

I would not be sending a K130 or ANZAC into the straits of Hormuz, let alone an Arafura.

This would need ships with multiple tiers of sensors, sendor fusion, as well as weapons, with a highly teained and experienced crew, not to forget seemless intergration with allied air and surface systems.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I have always wondered about sea born radar systems. How do they see over the horizon? Is it something like HF which uses the ionisphere to reflect ?

The Russians had a system but it was pretty bad, but useful for "there is a ship over the horizon" and "there is not a ship over the horizon". From all reports it didn't really work, but perhaps was an excuse to not have everyone at stations all the time.

Perhaps an easier upgrade pathway would be say the SAAB Sea Giraffe, which the AMB version is fitted to the LHDs.

Wasn't that the origional fitout of the anzacs? Non AESA girraffe?

IMO, Arafura class opvs have alot of potential.

But we didn't really build them to be combat ships, they don't have high speed/high output engines for example. Im sure we cut back on electrical generation as well.

With the current call for both patrol ships and mine clearing ships. Maybe they will relook at what she can do, but I think its unlikely she will get fitted with super weapons.

 

[SammyC]

The Russians had a system but it was pretty bad, but useful for "there is a ship over the horizon" and "there is not a ship over the horizon". From all reports it didn't really work, but perhaps was an excuse to not have everyone at stations all the time.


Wasn't that the origional fitout of the anzacs? Non AESA girraffe?


But we didn't really build them to be combat ships, they don't have high speed/high output engines for example. Im sure we cut back on electrical generation as well.

With the current call for both patrol ships and mine clearing ships. Maybe they will relook at what she can do, but I think its unlikely she will get fitted with super weapons.

Yes it did have an early Giraffe radar. I had forgotten about that.

 

[iambuzzard]

The Russians had a system but it was pretty bad, but useful for "there is a ship over the horizon" and "there is not a ship over the horizon". From all reports it didn't really work, but perhaps was an excuse to not have everyone at stations all the time.


Wasn't that the origional fitout of the anzacs? Non AESA girraffe?


But we didn't really build them to be combat ships, they don't have high speed/high output engines for example. Im sure we cut back on electrical generation as well.

With the current call for both patrol ships and mine clearing ships. Maybe they will relook at what she can do, but I think its unlikely she will get fitted with super weapons.

A 40mm gun and possibly a small SAM set up would be enough.

 

[MickB]

I would not be sending a K130 or ANZAC into the straits of Hormuz, let alone an Arafura.

This would need ships with multiple tiers of sensors, sendor fusion, as well as weapons, with a highly teained and experienced crew, not to forget seemless intergration with allied air and surface systems.

Sorry i think we got our wires crossed, I was in no way advocated the sending of an Arafura into Hormuz.

My comment was in reply to iambuzzard in reference his comments on the fact that Iran operates a large number of small FAC.
I was (perhaps badly) commenting on the different operational context between Iran and Australia.