Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

In such scenarios where the ordinary constabulary duties have gotten to the point where it has become reasonable to think a hostile, armed response is possible or even likely, then the role is no longer really a constabulary one and therefore should be handled by a proper warship.

After all, in the event that a hostile power has become willing to target or engage an Australian patrol vessel, the hostile platform(s) could be surface warships, subs, or aerial threats. This in turn means that future Australian patrolling assets would need some sort of sensing and awareness capability covering air/surface and subsurface approaches, as well as some ability to respond to threats coming from same, assuming such a scenario does develop.

This necessity to cover air, surface and subsurface would effectively require at a minimum, corvette-level capabilities and IMO frigate systems would likely be more appropriate for Australia. In effect, such a scenario would mean Australia would need to task GP frigates to conduct patrols due to the breadth of potential threats. An upgraded patrol vessel kitted out with some sort of missile/gun CIWS would just not be adequate, since the Australian vessel could be targeted with hostile torpedoes, AShM (air, surface, and/or sub-surfaced launched), hostile air or ASuW from hostile escorts. Once one has started talking about scenarios where an Australian vessel might become the target of maritime strikes launched using anti-ship cruise missile-armed H-6 bombers, then one has gotten into something where upgrades just would not be sufficient. Without redesigning and then rebuilding the vessels, the damage control and redundancies found in a proper warship design just cannot be achieved in the OPV, and if we have gotten to a scenario where the OPV might be threatened by medium-range assets, one has to assume there is a risk of leakers and thus a need for damage control and survivability measures.

This is what I don’t understand.

There are so many nations that operate Navy and Coastguard vessels that have the modest type of capability that some of us suggest the OPVs should have.

I am genuinely intrigued as to dynamic.

What is it that we don’t get that countless other nations do .

It’s like Army having a rifleman and a MBT and absolutely nothing in firepower or options between.

I’m sure those advocates for the status quo are as frustrated re the up gun OPV thing as are those of us advocates frustrated re the lack of investment in capitalising on the potential of the Arafuras

Again we always look for over match for any given scenario

Cheers S

 

[Todjaeger]

This is what I don’t understand.

There are so many nations that operate Navy and Coastguard vessels that have the modest type of capability that some of us suggest the OPVs should have.

I am genuinely intrigued as to dynamic.

What is it that we don’t get that countless other nations do .

It’s like Army having a rifleman and a MBT and absolutely nothing in firepower or options between.

I’m sure those advocates for the status quo are as frustrated re the up gun OPV thing as are those of us advocates frustrated re the lack of investment in capitalising on the potential of the Arafuras

Again we always look for over match for any given scenario

Cheers S

I did not go through the entire list of nations that operate Coast Guard forces, or an equivalent type maritime agency, but TBH I only came across a few that have anything with significantly greater armament than the OPV's so I am at a bit of a loss. The USCG of course, and similarly the PRC Coast Guard, and for that matter it appears that the S. Korean Coast Guard might have vessels like you are describing.

Japan does operate some Coast Guard vessels with slightly greater armament (one or two 40 mm guns for instance) but this would still fall well short of what would be needed in the event of a clash with a hostile naval or coast guard vessel.

If one looks, it does appear that nations which operate OPV's they are typically only armed with one or two small calibre guns usually between 20 mm and 40 mm. Of the nations whose OPV's are armed with something larger like a 57 mm or 76 mm, that seems to be their major units serving in place of something like a frigate.

As for looking for a capability in between constabulary and combatant, I would argue that comparing that to the difference between an infantrymen and a MBT is looking at it the wrong way. Remember that the OPV's are for constabulary patrolling duties, not combat. As such, the between comparison would likely be making it between a police officer and an infantrymen.

When and how those types are personnel are used is quite different from each other in most circumstances. Yes, depending on area and laws, rules and regulations in place there might be some special police teams that exist which can perform some of the same tactical functions as infantrymen, but those are very much the exception rather than rule.

Now if people feel that Australia needs something more than what the OPV's can really do to use for patrolling, that is fine. Have orders placed for the RAN for some sort of patrol frigate. Just keep in mind that people are once again going to want to engage in scope/mission/capability creep and the more capable one makes such a design, the more expensive it becomes.

 

[Tbone]

Do people on this forum understand when war breaks out then a lot of peace time agreements are out the window? Basing won’t be an issue to northern countries if they are also being overcome by Chinese aggression! We have agreements to most countries around us that will easily allow us to forward to deploy once a conflict breaks out in Taiwan. Let’s get real here!

 

[StevoJH]

Now if people feel that Australia needs something more than what the OPV's can really do to use for patrolling, that is fine. Have orders placed for the RAN for some sort of patrol frigate. Just keep in mind that people are once again going to want to engage in scope/mission/capability creep and the more capable one makes such a design, the more expensive it becomes.

Which is what the ANZAC class effectively started out as? And what the updated Mogami class are effectively going to be?

Do people on this forum understand when war breaks out then a lot of peace time agreements are out the window? Basing won’t be an issue to northern countries if they are also being overcome by Chinese aggression! We have agreements to most countries around us that will easily allow us to forward to deploy once a conflict breaks out in Taiwan. Let’s get real here!

Lets say hypothetically that China attacked Taiwan.

Now lets say that Japan, Korea, the United States and Australia aid Taiwan in some way, shape or form. And that may *not* necessarily include supplying combat forces.

Unless China attacks them directly, what benefit would countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia get from joining a war against China?

 

[spoz]

What benefit would it be to Australia?

 

[Reptilia]

Richard Marles headed to Japan to talk with DM Koizumi tomorrow.
Looks like the Mogami announcement may not happen, possibly waiting for PM Takaichi who will be visiting Australia at the end of the month or early next?


-Ministry of Defense

‘Reporter:
Regarding the Japan–Australia Defense Ministers’ Meeting you mentioned earlier, Japan has been selected as a partner for the joint development of the Royal Australian Navy’s next-generation general-purpose frigates. At the meeting last December, you stated that both sides aimed to conclude the final contract by the end of March this year. Could you update us on the current status of the contract?

Minister Koizumi:
With regard to the contract for the Royal Australian Navy’s next-generation general-purpose frigates, as this involves the partner country, Australia, I would ask for your understanding that Japan cannot comment on the status before the Australian government makes an official announcement.

Once an official announcement is made by the Australian side, the Japanese side will provide an explanation at an appropriate time. In any case, this project is important for deepening Japan–Australia defense cooperation, and the Ministry of Defense will continue to work closely with the Australian Department of Defence.’

 

[Tbone]

Which is what the ANZAC class effectively started out as? And what the updated Mogami class are effectively going to be?



Lets say hypothetically that China attacked Taiwan.

Now lets say that Japan, Korea, the United States and Australia aid Taiwan in some way, shape or form. And that may *not* necessarily include supplying combat forces.

Unless China attacks them directly, what benefit would countries like Indonesia, Vietnam and Malaysia get from joining a war against China?

I think it would be in all those countries interest to deter and push back China’s take over Taiwan. You honestly don’t think China would stop just there.. small island of the Phillipines would be next then South Pacific islands after that.. just as Europe wants to contain Russia to Ukraine.. I thought this was obvious!

 

[Todjaeger]

I think it would be in all those countries interest to deter and push back China’s take over Taiwan. You honestly don’t think China would stop just there.. small island of the Phillipines would be next then South Pacific islands after that.. just as Europe wants to contain Russia to Ukraine.. I thought this was obvious!

Unlikely that the PRC would wish to occupy and/or annex territories belonging to other nations, esp occupied ones. The most likely driver for any sort of expansion along such lines would be so that the PRC has access to and can exploit resources.

However, Taiwan is a bit different in that it has been settled by Chinese ethnicities for thousands of years, and administratively governed by China off and on for the last 800 years, give or take. That is where China's desire for Taiwan would reasonably be viewed differently than if the PRC were to attempt to take and hold Balabac in the Philippines. Taking control of Taiwan could accurately described as returning Taiwan to centralized Chinese control and governance.

Unless there was some sort of either natural resource located on territory, or the location was of strategic importance, then the PRC is unlikely to have much interest. The PRC interest in the first and second island chains seems to be more location-based, because facilities located there could potentially detect and interdict assets bound for the PRC from US facilities.

One of the areas where Australia should be concerned is about the PRC getting basing rights and/or dual-use facilities in locations that could aid the PRC in denying Australia access to SLOC, or in locations which could then be used to monitor SLOC across the Pacific.

 

[iambuzzard]

Unlikely that the PRC would wish to occupy and/or annex territories belonging to other nations, esp occupied ones. The most likely driver for any sort of expansion along such lines would be so that the PRC has access to and can exploit resources.

However, Taiwan is a bit different in that it has been settled by Chinese ethnicities for thousands of years, and administratively governed by China off and on for the last 800 years, give or take. That is where China's desire for Taiwan would reasonably be viewed differently than if the PRC were to attempt to take and hold Balabac in the Philippines. Taking control of Taiwan could accurately described as returning Taiwan to centralized Chinese control and governance.

Unless there was some sort of either natural resource located on territory, or the location was of strategic importance, then the PRC is unlikely to have much interest. The PRC interest in the first and second island chains seems to be more location-based, because facilities located there could potentially detect and interdict assets bound for the PRC from US facilities.

One of the areas where Australia should be concerned is about the PRC getting basing rights and/or dual-use facilities in locations that could aid the PRC in denying Australia access to SLOC, or in locations which could then be used to monitor SLOC across the Pacific.

You don't want the PRC getting control of Taiwan, trust me! I have family in China.

 

[SammyC]

As I understand it, the above is essentially why OPV's were developed, and precisely why Australia had been looking to get them into service.



I have to disagree about the potential value of an OPV, even a significantly upgraded one, in a scenario like the above. If an Australian vessel attracts unfriendly attention from the armed forces of another nation because the Australian vessel is pursuing a fleeing/evading poacher or SIEV, then unless the Australian vessel is kitted out for essentially full spectrum combat like a frigate, then the upgrades would be worth SFA. Again, it comes back to being able to achieve capability overmatch. If a PLAN frigate gets tasked to intervene because a RAN OPV is pursuing a PRC fishing fleet vessel, even an OPV if upgraded is not going to be able to match the combat power of the PLAN frigate, or realistically be able to deal with the potential aftermath of exchanging shots with said frigate. Also depending on where such a scenario took place, it is distinctly possible that other hostile assets like MPA, subs, or additional surface warships could also respond. If the threat enviro is such that it is beyond the domain of a constabulary response, then proper warships are needed.

Perhaps so. It does then suggest that as the world deteriorates (call me glass half empty) we are likely to need a greater number of frigates as they again step down into previously constabulary duties.

The world is OK at the moment, but the environment in another 10 years with further deglobalisation is likely to be more fraught.

Possibly the pathway is more Mogamis. I would envisage the contract with Japan has some options included for a fourth and fifth unit. It would be an easy way to get a fleet of 13 and overlap with our eventual Henderson factory. Perhaps the Henderson factory rolls out more than 8.

Else it is other assets to create a broader and more effective area of denial out into the Indian and Pacific oceans and around the islands such that OPVs can operate as constabulary vessels without fear of interdiction with an overpowering cutter or frigate. I'm not sure what that would look like.

 

[SammyC]

Unlikely that the PRC would wish to occupy and/or annex territories belonging to other nations, esp occupied ones. The most likely driver for any sort of expansion along such lines would be so that the PRC has access to and can exploit resources.

However, Taiwan is a bit different in that it has been settled by Chinese ethnicities for thousands of years, and administratively governed by China off and on for the last 800 years, give or take. That is where China's desire for Taiwan would reasonably be viewed differently than if the PRC were to attempt to take and hold Balabac in the Philippines. Taking control of Taiwan could accurately described as returning Taiwan to centralized Chinese control and governance.

Unless there was some sort of either natural resource located on territory, or the location was of strategic importance, then the PRC is unlikely to have much interest. The PRC interest in the first and second island chains seems to be more location-based, because facilities located there could potentially detect and interdict assets bound for the PRC from US facilities.

One of the areas where Australia should be concerned is about the PRC getting basing rights and/or dual-use facilities in locations that could aid the PRC in denying Australia access to SLOC, or in locations which could then be used to monitor SLOC across the Pacific.

Germany annexing Austria and Checkoslovakia comes mind here. Conquering powers rarely stop at their borders.

I would have thought that after Taiwan, China would use it to gain full ownership and control over the nine dash line area, which is the fishing zone for all of these countries. Then it will drive coercive security agreements with these countries to exclude America from having basing rights, and along with that Australia and Japan.

So at that point Australia has a hostile entire S E Asia, or else it is right up in the hot zone with everyrhing we have. Limited options for scenarios in between.

 

[SammyC]

Richard Marles headed to Japan to talk with DM Koizumi tomorrow.
Looks like the Mogami announcement may not happen, possibly waiting for PM Takaichi who will be visiting Australia at the end of the month or early next?


-Ministry of Defense

‘Reporter:
Regarding the Japan–Australia Defense Ministers’ Meeting you mentioned earlier, Japan has been selected as a partner for the joint development of the Royal Australian Navy’s next-generation general-purpose frigates. At the meeting last December, you stated that both sides aimed to conclude the final contract by the end of March this year. Could you update us on the current status of the contract?

Minister Koizumi:
With regard to the contract for the Royal Australian Navy’s next-generation general-purpose frigates, as this involves the partner country, Australia, I would ask for your understanding that Japan cannot comment on the status before the Australian government makes an official announcement.

Once an official announcement is made by the Australian side, the Japanese side will provide an explanation at an appropriate time. In any case, this project is important for deepening Japan–Australia defense cooperation, and the Ministry of Defense will continue to work closely with the Australian Department of Defence.’

I'm thinking this has been delayed, along with any NDS announcements whilst the middle east dominates the news cycle. Both countries want this to be communicated in clean air, not linked to current events, and not drowned out in the media noise.

Look at the backlash Albanese had when he chose last week to announce the sports gambling limitation.

 

[Todjaeger]

You don't want the PRC getting control of Taiwan, trust me! I have family in China.

To be fair, I am not advocating for the PRC to take over Taiwan and that is without even delving into the potential outcome of companies like the being forced to either cease production, or produce only for the PRC. Rather, PRC claims to Taiwan are at least understandable in a way that a hypothetical PRC claim and seizure of islands in the Philippines would not be.

Perhaps so. It does then suggest that as the world deteriorates (call me glass half empty) we are likely to need a greater number of frigates as they again step down into previously constabulary duties.

The world is OK at the moment, but the environment in another 10 years with further deglobalisation is likely to be more fraught.

Possibly the pathway is more Mogamis. I would envisage the contract with Japan has some options included for a fourth and fifth unit. It would be an easy way to get a fleet of 13 and overlap with our eventual Henderson factory. Perhaps the Henderson factory rolls out more than 8.

Else it is other assets to create a broader and more effective area of denial out into the Indian and Pacific oceans and around the islands such that OPVs can operate as constabulary vessels without fear of interdiction with an overpowering cutter or frigate. I'm not sure what that would look like.

Consider me as being more of a pragmatic realist. Rather than looking a glass as half empty, or half full, I would be more concerned about who TF has been drinking from my glass.

If it looks like the world is going to be devolving into further risks, threats, and chaos and that more warships will be needed, then I would advocate that more work should be undertaken to accomplish everything needed to make that happen and work. This would be a much better way to spend the time and resources one has now, than attempting to something never designed to be a fighting ship, into something which can kind of be a fighting ship, except it never ever really would be.

Pretty much the only time where this might have become worthwhile, is if things have really, really gone to custard and the RAN needs more armed vessels in service, and it needed them yesterday, or a week ago, or... You get the idea. Unless/until things have gotten so bad that the normal rules regarding costs and the safety reqs and regs have been thrown out, it will just keep on looking like trying to make a combatant out of a patrol craft.

 

[iambuzzard]

Perhaps so. It does then suggest that as the world deteriorates (call me glass half empty) we are likely to need a greater number of frigates as they again step down into previously constabulary duties.

The world is OK at the moment, but the environment in another 10 years with further deglobalisation is likely to be more fraught.

Possibly the pathway is more Mogamis. I would envisage the contract with Japan has some options included for a fourth and fifth unit. It would be an easy way to get a fleet of 13 and overlap with our eventual Henderson factory. Perhaps the Henderson factory rolls out more than 8.

Else it is other assets to create a broader and more effective area of denial out into the Indian and Pacific oceans and around the islands such that OPVs can operate as constabulary vessels without fear of interdiction with an overpowering cutter or frigate. I'm not sure what that would look like.

Sammy,
I like the idea of more Mogamis. Particularly if we upgrade along with the Japanese. We need to keep popping them out at a fast rate like them. No more set numbers, just new contracts to keep the line hot.

 

[Reptilia]

Sammy,
I like the idea of more Mogamis. Particularly if we upgrade along with the Japanese. We need to keep popping them out at a fast rate like them. No more set numbers, just new contracts to keep the line hot.

Government has unfortunately already stated a 2 year drumbeat.
=
Japan
1-Build 2026, Delivery 2029, Commissioning 2030
2-Build 2028, Delivery 2031, Commissioning 2032
3-Build 2030, Delivery 2033, Commissioning 2034
+
Australia - Construction start 2029.
4to11 2036-2050
Or
4to11 2034-2048

Way too slow, should be every 18 months minimum. 2034-2045.

 

[iambuzzard]

Government has unfortunately already stated a 2 year drumbeat.
=
Japan
1-Build 2026, Delivery 2029, Commissioning 2030
2-Build 2028, Delivery 2031, Commissioning 2032
3-Build 2030, Delivery 2033, Commissioning 2034
+
Australia - Construction start 2029.
4-11 2036-2050
Or
4-11 2034-2048

Way too slow, should be every 18 months minimum. 2034-2045.

Way, Way, too slow. Canberra seem to be on sedatives. Things could go hot any time.

 

[Todjaeger]

Way, Way, too slow. Canberra seem to be on sedatives. Things could go hot any time.

Too slow? Not really IMO. The problem boils down to how long it takes to takes to actually get complex modern warships built and into service.

Unfortunately this also makes the 'fix' something impossible, namely that the ordering needs to have been made earlier if sooner delivery dates are required.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Mogami in the recent ops. They are nice ships... so close you can taste them!

I would have thought that after Taiwan, China would use it to gain full ownership and control over the nine dash line area, which is the fishing zone for all of these countries. Then it will drive coercive security agreements with these countries to exclude America from having basing rights, and along with that Australia and Japan.

If China takes Taiwan, then they will inherit Taiwan border disputes, which includes Japan, Korea etc. Those are somewhat separate to the 9 dash line. The day China takes Taiwan, it basically puts Japan on a war footing because Japan wouldn't have a border dispute with tiny, defensive, already under threat Taiwan ROC, but with mighty, bigger, entire nations sized land grabbing China PRC. China PRC would suddenly move ~400km closer to Japan, with permanent Island Territory.

Senkaku Islands - Wikipedia



Australia doesn't have much of a say in this. But oh gosh, China/Taiwan/Korea/Japan who are important trading partners are very, very concerned with this. Japan's views on this may be more important than Washingtons assurances of support for Taiwan. While the Americans may, for Japan, they put it into the existential existence pile. The Japanese would absolutely fight for this, with or without American support.

But these are key territories and straits that Japan would want to keep free, or if threatened, control.

Mogami's would be key in doing this. Like most countries, Japan doesn't have endless aegis cruisers, so smaller vessels will have to support larger ones as capable surface action groups to secure airspace etc.

Australia would likely be called into to support. We might be an acceptable party to ensure peace if the Americans cannot be that party. Ensure ships can come to Australia from China, from Australia to China, but also the rest of the trade into north Asia.


As we have recently seen in the Gulf, straits are important geographic features. It doesn't take much to make them unusable.

Way, Way, too slow. Canberra seem to be on sedatives. Things could go hot any time.

Its hard to speed up something that is not yet started.
With Australian builds of Mogamis, it may be possible to accelerate. They could have ~3 under construction at one time in WA, and then shift to east coast/Osborne for fitout. Shaping metal may not be the bottleneck, but component and system supplying from Japan, or local production in Australia, which takes time. 5+ years and we could see more of a speed up.

 

[Bob53]

Germany annexing Austria and Checkoslovakia comes mind here. Conquering powers rarely stop at their borders.

I would have thought that after Taiwan, China would use it to gain full ownership and control over the nine dash line area, which is the fishing zone for all of these countries. Then it will drive coercive security agreements with these countries to exclude America from having basing rights, and along with that Australia and Japan.

So at that point Australia has a hostile entire S E Asia, or else it is right up in the hot zone with everyrhing we have. Limited options for scenarios in between.

China will have their hands full annexing Taiwan Across 130 miles. Any country now is able to relatively punch above their weigh against any enemy coming by sea. Combining surveillance, mining and attack attack drones, smart mines, short range SAMs and short range ASMs effectively makes most in shore zones are a lot easier to defend and nightmarish for any marine landing force.

 

[Bob53]

Government has unfortunately already stated a 2 year drumbeat.
=
Japan
1-Build 2026, Delivery 2029, Commissioning 2030
2-Build 2028, Delivery 2031, Commissioning 2032
3-Build 2030, Delivery 2033, Commissioning 2034
+
Australia - Construction start 2029.
4to11 2036-2050
Or
4to11 2034-2048

Way too slow, should be every 18 months minimum. 2034-2045.

12 month drumbeat with no mid life upgrades. Sell them off at 12 years of age.