Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

The way the world is going I would think 57mm or 76mm (if possible) with smart ammunition plus at least something like SeaRam at a bare minimum. Because the Arafuras will essentially be operating in our littorial environment they shouldn't need NSM or ESSM as that capability should be under the umbrella of coastal defence from HIMARS if the powers that be get their act together. Any further out will require a Tier 1 or Tier 2 combatant.

I can't see searam or Phalanx on the Arafuras as that weight is upwards of 6-8 tonnes, and it needs to be mounted relatively high up for effectiveness. There's also no existing platform for it, so will also need a substantial structure resulting in even more weight. Ship stability would likey be compromised after all of that.

I would have though that 40mm is the maximum that these vessels will ever get, however I would view that a navalised EOS R400 with a 30mm bushmaster is a more likely outcome, perhaps with a Spike, Javelin, Hellfire or other missile that this system already works with. Its only about half a tonne, maybe a tonne with missiles, and already in the inventory.

Again these won't get weapons until they are properly in service and their purpose has been proven. That has to come first.

Mind you, I've seen systems bolted to ships going into active operational areas in very quick time. What can take years in peacetime, can (unsuprisingly) happen very fast when push comes to shove, particularly for well understood weapons.

So if the scenario suddenly changes, and for what ever reason Arafuras need a self defence gun, then it can be done quickly. Else we might see this upgrade after the class has proven itself in service (which I'm certain it will).

 

[koala]

I can't see searam or Phalanx on the Arafuras as that weight is upwards of 6-8 tonnes, and it needs to be mounted relatively high up for effectiveness. There's also no existing platform for it, so will also need a substantial structure resulting in even more weight. Ship stability would likey be compromised after all of that.

I would have though that 40mm is the maximum that these vessels will ever get, however I would view that a navalised EOS R400 with a 30mm bushmaster is a more likely outcome, perhaps with a Spike, Javelin, Hellfire or other missile that this system already works with. Its only about half a tonne, maybe a tonne with missiles, and already in the inventory.

Again these won't get weapons until they are properly in service and their purpose has been proven. That has to come first.

Mind you, I've seen systems bolted to ships going into active operational areas in very quick time. What can take years in peacetime, can (unsuprisingly) happen very fast when push comes to shove, particularly for well understood weapons.

So if the scenario suddenly changes, and for what ever reason Arafuras need a self defence gun, then it can be done quickly. Else we might see this upgrade after the class has proven itself in service (which I'm certain it will).

The R400 MARINE solution sounds like a great option, 30mm cannon and supporting Javelin, Stinger, and Spike missiles. To have a 30mm with ammo options and a choice of self-defense missiles out to 4km would keep our illegal fishers, smugglers and cable cutters somewhat concerned.
At present our (coast guard) border force and naval patrol would be overmatched by China's coast guard. Surely this would be better than just a 25mm Typhoon system and a couple of 0.5 cal machine guns!
Marine Lethality Systems | Electro Optic Systems

 

[ADMk2]

The thing is there is only so much capability you can add to a cheap, limited platform before it is no longer cheap, but still limited.

When the OPVs were first proposed I was pushing the line that we should be going for corvettes or light frigates, and an ideal world, GP frigates. The line back then was that we needed constablary vessels, not warships. I pointed out that the RAN had been trying to get small warships since the 1960s to replace the reserve WWII built covettes and frigates, but had consistantly failed.

We are finally getting GPFs and high end ASW FFGs, to support our DDGs. There will be uncrewed assets as well, though likely not the large ones first anticipated, they will still be better armed and more survivable than the OPVs.

I suspect the OPVs with be primarily used as constulary, training and experimental assets.

The Arafura Class was never cheap to begin with and Defence has mismanaged it spectacularly so…

But you forget it was RAN who specified these needed a high end 40mm gun system in the first place, which would have provided the second most capable gun based armament within present day RAN behind only the 127mm gun in-service...

Defence peacetime plans are all well and good. It’s unfunny how quickly they seem to unravel when actual conflict strikes… Somehow an enemy is just going to accept these “aren’t for combat” and won’t fire upon them? Okay… Last time we were genuinely at war, our enemy attacked us in Sydney harbour. How much further away from combat do you expect the Arafuras can get?

Whoever made that decision should be forced to serve on them when the shooting starts…

Bill and Ben only needed capable radars, decoy systems and Phalanx. First real operational deployment? Well NOW they also need missiles, toot smart, so RBS-70 it will have to be (seeing as though the cupboard is bare…) Would have been terribly unfortunate if our Army had of required their own systems, at the time. RAN might have had to invest in a ship properly equipped for once…

So we replace them with LHD’s. These apparently don’t even need Phalanx any more, let alone anything more capable…

But, they also haven’t gone within coo’ee of a shooting war either.

 

[Volkodav]

The Arafura Class was never cheap to begin with and Defence has mismanaged it spectacularly so…

But you forget it was RAN who specified these needed a high end 40mm gun system in the first place, which would have provided the second most capable gun based armament within present day RAN behind only the 127mm gun in-service...

Defence peacetime plans are all well and good. It’s unfunny how quickly they seem to unravel when actual conflict strikes… Somehow an enemy is just going to accept these “aren’t for combat” and won’t fire upon them? Okay… Last time we were genuinely at war, our enemy attacked us in Sydney harbour. How much further away from combat do you expect the Arafuras can get?

Whoever made that decision should be forced to serve on them when the shooting starts…

Bill and Ben only needed capable radars, decoy systems and Phalanx. First real operational deployment? Well NOW they also need missiles, toot smart, so RBS-70 it will have to be (seeing as though the cupboard is bare…) Would have been terribly unfortunate if our Army had of required their own systems, at the time. RAN might have had to invest in a ship properly equipped for once…

So we replace them with LHD’s. These apparently don’t even need Phalanx any more, let alone anything more capable…

But, they also haven’t gone within coo’ee of a shooting war either.

And when we lose a Hunter because the project to up arm the Arafuras left them without a counter drone layer?

The smart move would be a cross platform capability rather than one tailored for six constabulary assets ordered instead of corvettes and frigates because there was an unwillingness to recognise that policies from the other side of politics were correct.

The irony is, these policies were based on professional advice and were not captains picks as claimed. Often the best defence decisions occur when the government of the day and the accountable ministers admit they are not experts and seek advice from actual experts.

Other decisions are along the lines of, "this is the best we can do with the money and time we have".

I would be quite happy seeing Arafuras bombed up with gear procured for other capabilities, I am totally against seeing money spent on bespoke solutions aimed to turn them into something they are not.

We deployed RBS-70 and fitted Phalanx when RAM was available and Sidral was considered. I agree there have been, and continue to be many holes.

The problem is we are now trying to do everything at once after decades of under investment. There simply arent enough experienced people to do what we are currently attemping to do, let along everything else that needs to be done.

 

[Stampede]

Big ships will still have a place
They’ll operate with regard to threat at hand as j
When the OPVs were first proposed I was pushing the line that we should be going for corvettes or light frigates, and an ideal world, GP frigates. The line back then was that we needed constablary vessels, not warships. I pointed out that the RAN had been trying to get small warships since the 1960s to replace the reserve WWII built covettes and frigates, but had consistantly failed.

We are finally getting GPFs and high end ASW FFGs, to support our DDGs. There will be uncrewed assets as well, though likely not the large ones first anticipated, they will still be better armed and more survivable than the OPVs.

I suspect the OPVs with be primarily used as constulary, training and experimental assets.

 

[ADMk2]

And when we lose a Hunter because the project to up arm the Arafuras left them without a counter drone layer?

The smart move would be a cross platform capability rather than one tailored for six constabulary assets ordered instead of corvettes and frigates because there was an unwillingness to recognise that policies from the other side of politics were correct.

The irony is, these policies were based on professional advice and were not captains picks as claimed. Often the best defence decisions occur when the government of the day and the accountable ministers admit they are not experts and seek advice from actual experts.

Other decisions are along the lines of, "this is the best we can do with the money and time we have".

I would be quite happy seeing Arafuras bombed up with gear procured for other capabilities, I am totally against seeing money spent on bespoke solutions aimed to turn them into something they are not.

We deployed RBS-70 and fitted Phalanx when RAM was available and Sidral was considered. I agree there have been, and continue to be many holes.

The problem is we are now trying to do everything at once after decades of under investment. There simply arent enough experienced people to do what we are currently attemping to do, let along everything else that needs to be done.

The Hunters are already without a dedicated C-UAS layer. The Arafuras were still funded for a high end medium calibre gun system, nonetheless. But note as well the Arafuras (not to mention LHD’s, Supply Class, ANZAC Class and Hobart class) are ALL without a dedicated C-UAS layer.

The political fallout of seeing an Arafura on the bottom of the ocean, as opposed to a Hunter isn’t going to be much different. The problem here is you are considering the business as usual procurement model and level of resources.

I am considering the Government’s own strategic documents that state we are literally knocking on the door of conflict. The fact is ADF is showing absolutely no urgency whatsoever in preparing itself for the conflict it’s own strategic guidance says it needs to.

It‘s not just me who is pointing our lax we are on these sorts of issues.

ADF bases, fleet units, the list goes on…

Tensions lie beneath the surface of AUKUS deal

This time next year American and British nuclear-powered submarines are expected to be operating out of Perth’s HMAS Stirling naval base, but as the deployments fast approach, frustrations are building.

thewest.com.au

 

[seaspear]

With regards to ships having ability in anti drone warfare, what scenarios are we talking about tied up at their pier at home or a long way out to sea ?How would the ships react in these scenarios
This is one pathway that may be looked
athttps://www.techtimes.com/articles/323754/20260810/one-microwave-burst-dozens-drones-down-marines-fund-fiber-optic-defeat-system.htm

 

[Volkodav]

The Hunters are already without a dedicated C-UAS layer. The Arafuras were still funded for a high end medium calibre gun system, nonetheless. But note as well the Arafuras (not to mention LHD’s, Supply Class, ANZAC Class and Hobart class) are ALL without a dedicated C-UAS layer.

The political fallout of seeing an Arafura on the bottom of the ocean, as opposed to a Hunter isn’t going to be much different. The problem here is you are considering the business as usual procurement model and level of resources.

I am considering the Government’s own strategic documents that state we are literally knocking on the door of conflict. The fact is ADF is showing absolutely no urgency whatsoever in preparing itself for the conflict it’s own strategic guidance says it needs to.

It‘s not just me who is pointing our lax we are on these sorts of issues.

ADF bases, fleet units, the list goes on…

Tensions lie beneath the surface of AUKUS deal

This time next year American and British nuclear-powered submarines are expected to be operating out of Perth’s HMAS Stirling naval base, but as the deployments fast approach, frustrations are building.

thewest.com.au

Exactly, major combatants and critical strategic assets are without a C-UAS layer, some are without a CIWS or point defence missles. I would argue correcting this is far more critical than upgrading the Arafuras, unless of course the Arafura outfit was used to derisk a rollout to the rest of the fleet.

 

[ADMk2]

Exactly, major combatants and critical strategic assets are without a C-UAS layer, some are without a CIWS or point defence missles. I would argue correcting this is far more critical than upgrading the Arafuras, unless of course the Arafura outfit was used to derisk a rollout to the rest of the fleet.

As but one more example of this laxness - as if it were necessary, RAN literally has the upgraded Phalanx CIWS in-service to fit to the LHD’s and has yet to do so.

it was scoped and funded to do so. Yet it has not. It literally has 6x newly upgraded Phalanx systems sitting in storage, doing nothing.

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/phalanx-close-weapons-system-block-upgrade

 

[Reptilia]

As but one more example of this laxness - as if it were necessary, RAN literally has the upgraded Phalanx CIWS in-service to fit to the LHD’s and has yet to do so.

it was scoped and funded to do so. Yet it has not. It literally has 6x newly upgraded Phalanx systems sitting in storage, doing nothing.

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/phalanx-close-weapons-system-block-upgrade

Probably pivot now to SeaRam on everything.

 

[iambuzzard]

As but one more example of this laxness - as if it were necessary, RAN literally has the upgraded Phalanx CIWS in-service to fit to the LHD’s and has yet to do so.

it was scoped and funded to do so. Yet it has not. It literally has 6x newly upgraded Phalanx systems sitting in storage, doing nothing.

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/phalanx-close-weapons-system-block-upgrade

Unforgivable. They are playing with peoples' lives if we get into a hot war. What's the excuse?

 

[Stampede]

I’m perplexed at the disparity of the rhetoric of great challenging times of immediate threat and the seemingly slow pace of upgrading our fleet in quick time

To clarify I get we are doing stuff.
Complicated tech takes time
Introducing new unmanned systems and missiles…..tick
We are doing the AUKUS thing!…..tick

But what we are not doing is the bolt on stuff.
The quick fix to get some measured capability enhancements
So is it that the immediate threat is not so apparent?
Is it a lack of knowledgeable personnel?
Is it a lack of money?

If government truly believed we needed improvement across the fleet then I’d be expecting a much greater pace of enhancement.
We talk as if it is 1938, yet act like it’s 1928.

it’s not a question of rob peter to pay paul
It’s a question of action.

Our total fleet needs rapid enhancement against a broad range of today’s threats.

Our fifteen big ships should be able to sail into harms way

Our Capes and Arafura’s should have overmatch way above what’s offered with a 50 cal

For crying out loud we are looking at building a fleet of twenty destroyers/ frigates and yet can’t do justice to the current ten.

it would be comedic if it was not so saddening.

It makes no sense to me.

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

A Hobart already has ESSM, 5”/62, 25mm and Phalanx, each of which is capable of C-UAS. And of course some soft kill options. What do you want to add? I’m sure there will be changes in both hard and soft kill options over the coming years as experience shows and thinking evolves - but the US equivalent of that package has been perfectly competent in the present environment of the Red Sea and the Iran thing. We’re not talking about having to deal with the pocket handkerchief sized Black Sea.

Further, what is the “best” c-UAS for a warship. It is a layered defence, of course, not a single weapons system. But the threat resembles one we have faced before, and the best inner layer defence against that was the 40/60. We’ve still got plenty of those around - although admittedly mostly inactivated and mounted on plinths. Given the low radar cross section and infra red signatures possible with a drone, a system guided by the Mk1 eyeball might well still prove to be the best.

 

[Volkodav]

You would not believe the obstacles to implementing, simple commonsense changes.

So many mediocre, if not outright incompetent people who are not decision makers so much as risk adverse gate keepers.

I take my eye off something simple with an obvious outcome to work on something more critical, only to discover someone on a shit load more money than me has signed it off when all the advice was to reject it.

The more critical thing on the otherhand was rejected because the decision makes couldn't visualise how insginificant and unlikely the risk was. The "so what" was "nothing" no impact at all.

This is what we deal with when middle managers are paid less than your average experienced tradie.

Oh and competent technical people, many who are ex uniform, cant be promoted because they dont have MBAs or arent engineers, and cant leave because of multiple layers restricting trade.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Probably pivot now to SeaRam on everything.

SeaRAM on LHD may make more sense if its higher threats rather than just asymetric. It will always be inner layer anyway.

PHalanx is still useful. For secondary ships. AOR, maybe amphibious style, choules, smaller amphibs, or even a opv. Phalanx is used on land, anything that operates where mortars or pirate style weaponry might happen, its not entire stupid. We already have a lot of support to run this platform.

At this stage. I would actually think a 25mm gun on afaura is liveable. Its better than nothing. Its disappointing, but it would still be something. If you just want to hit a slow spotter UAV, you can, if you want to fire some warning shots at a decent distance well you can.. If you have something that can hit through a hull of a ship, it can do that. Put some decoys and EW capability on it. Its useful but limited, and that sums up the platform.

Thank god we didn't build the slightly large hull. We would have wasted perhaps $100,000 on steel and labor. That hull, could have supported:

• 76mm gun (or 56mm)
• 8xVLMica (or similar)
• 4xRBS15' (or 4 NSM)
• 2xtorpedoes (Mu90?)
• 35mm close in gun (or similar, or just a remote 20mm)
• Water cannons (hey its a OPV! EEZ, pirates, protestors, fire fighting, grey zone ops, fishing boats)
• ESM, Giraffe, 9LV combat system (the whole ecosystem)

It would have been absolutely terrible and huge failure if we built a ship, for but not with, that. Imagine if we had 10-15t of top margin growth weight, but the same if not better OPV capability. And the design is already paid for, already in the water, already sailing and in service. Same saab weapon system, Saab ESM, a hangar, etc. All for an extra 10m of hull. Essentially no extra crew requirement if you don't fit the equipment.



No much better we designed something not compatible with anything we operate or could acquire, modified it so it can't do anything and is even less of a patrol and opv ship.

Of course, if we were building that, no one else in the region would like a ship like that, with weapons like that. No one like singapore, malaysia, phillipines, Chile, etc..

Even if you delete every weapon off that hull, it would still likely be a better ship. Cheaper too. With greater endurance. By reconfiguring a small ship we built a confused platform.

If we had built 3 more of this type, it would have given the yard a proper spin up to Mogamis, with a ship, with actual weapons, and a hangar. Not just pleasure cruise capability. Shame we could never swallow our pride and commit to that to complete the orphan fleet.

 

[Reptilia]

SeaRAM on LHD may make more sense if its higher threats rather than just asymetric. It will always be inner layer anyway.

PHalanx is still useful. For secondary ships. AOR, maybe amphibious style, choules, smaller amphibs, or even a opv. Phalanx is used on land, anything that operates where mortars or pirate style weaponry might happen, its not entire stupid. We already have a lot of support to run this platform.

At this stage. I would actually think a 25mm gun on afaura is liveable. Its better than nothing. Its disappointing, but it would still be something. If you just want to hit a slow spotter UAV, you can, if you want to fire some warning shots at a decent distance well you can.. If you have something that can hit through a hull of a ship, it can do that. Put some decoys and EW capability on it. Its useful but limited, and that sums up the platform.

Thank god we didn't build the slightly large hull. We would have wasted perhaps $100,000 on steel and labor. That hull, could have supported 76mm gun, CLMica, RBS15, torpedoes, and a 35mm close in gun, it also has two decoy and antisub decoys, water cannons etc.

It would have been absolutely terrible and huge failure if we built a ship, for but not with, that. Imagine if we had 10-15t of top margin growth weight, but the same if not better OPV capability. And the design is already paid for, already in the water, already sailing and in service. Same saab weapon system, Saab ESM, a hangar, etc. All for an extra 10m of hull.

View attachment 55428

No much better we designed something not compatible with anything we operate or could acquire, modified it so it can't do anything and is even less of a patrol and opv ship.

Of course, if we were building that, no one else in the region would like a ship like that, with weapons like that. No one like singapore, malaysia, phillipines, Chile, etc..

Even if you delete every weapon off that hull, it would still likely be a better ship. Cheaper too.

MMPV90 was not worth it, significantly more cost, less range(3,000nm), triple the crew requirements and a delay in delivery, 1st expected 2028. We are getting an Upgraded Mogami delivered in 2029 + have all 6 OPVs in service.

 

[StingrayOZ]

MMPV90 was not worth it, significantly more cost, less range(3,000nm), triple the crew requirements and a delay in delivery, 1st expected 2028. We are getting an Upgraded Mogami delivered in 2029 + have all 6 OPVs in service.

Yes, 1 upgraded Mogami. in 2029. If Japan delivers, and everything is peaceful until the 2030s. Colour me sceptical. If Taiwan is taken in 2028, US withdraws from Asia at the same time. We are not getting that ship. That ship yard may no longer exist.

Arafura could have provided a logical shared pool training pipeline. Not triple the crew. Arafrua doesn't sail with 22. Its only triple the crew if you fully crew it with all weapons and capabilities fitted. Its a 10m stretch of the Arafura.

The range is, different. Again, depends if we configure it precisely as Bulgaria. The hull is larger, rather than having to move impossible things like mechanical spaces, crew quarters to make room for stores in a zero sum game, you have an extra 700T of displacement.

If it isn't as heavily armed and crewed, there is plenty of margin for stores and fuel.

The Arafura training pipeline and support network already has to be there, all that sunk cost. its not 1 ship, its ship 7/8/9. It a hot yard building a development of the existing hull.

Mogami is great, but we only really build Mogami capability in 2040.. By then these ships are 10 years old, huge pools of sailors, we are building a navy to transition to the ships that are coming.

Good thing we never build that 4th AWD< that would have been much cheaper, using the same support contracts, and training and crewing. Much better we create orphan cripples in tiny unsupportable numbers. Much better to completely break out aegis ship deployment capabilities and training pipelines, with no other ships for them to get into or around. Better we hyper risk the local mogami build into the sky, and create valleys of death in supply chains, and not build local capabilities.

The greater risk is we don't build them. Even if we either undeployed these additional ships, or under deployed the arafuras.

 

[JuicyF]

Would MHI purchasing land in WA and building a new shipyard/purchasing/co-own an existing shipyard, be feasible? There would be supply chain constraints on the Japanese side and labor supply issues, but having the added shipyard capability would be great, no?

 

[ADMk2]

Probably pivot now to SeaRam on everything.

Takes time to acquire, integrate and deploy.

The Phalanx are already delivered sitting on crates and have done so since before we chose SeaRAM for the Mogamis (only confirmed platform at this stage). As shown with Hobart, Choules and Supply Class, Phalanx clearly still provides value to the navy and the integration of SeaRAM is literally on the same platform as Phalanx with the same SWAP requirement.

Even if a decision has been made to go SeaRAM service wide, which hasn’t been made public, nor have there been orders or announcements confirming that or even a publicly known project to implement such, it will be years if not a decade before such a reality is achieved, so we're better off not using the Phalanx we’ve already planned for, paid for and received / have in- service today in the meantime?

We leave our main capitol ships all but defenceless against even moderate threats for how long exactly?

 

[ADMk2]

At least we now know Tomahawk isn’t going away any time soon…

Production going up to 1000x a year, via a USD $22.9b contract…

Raytheon secures US$22.9bn contract to expand Tomahawk production

Raytheon has secured a landmark seven-year, US$22.9 billion ($32.2 billion) contract to dramatically increase Tomahawk cruise missile production, with annual output set to exceed 1,000 missiles as the US and its allies expand long-range precision-strike inventories.

www.defenceconnect.com.au