WA mafia?
Its been the case for years. Look at the "canoe" comments, the Japanese submarine plan, the pressure on OPVs, Armidales, Capes, Evolved Capes.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Its been the case for years. Look at the "canoe" comments, the Japanese submarine plan, the pressure on OPVs, Armidales, Capes, Evolved Capes.
Twiggy is a known bullish and aggressive lobbyist, but I think he first bought in about 5 years ago. Volks you indicate this factor predates him?
Is it this influence, or just the outcome this is the last notable ship builder remaining, so last man standing syndrome.
With regards to hypersonic ballistic missiles especially Russian Zircon is there an accuracy issue that allow them to be dismissed by ships at sea
www.themoscowtimes.com
Even the navigation of Chinas Hypersonic missiles rely heavily on satellites ,what happens if these satelites themselves are attacked early and should Australia have that ability to protect itself with anti satellite weapons
asiatimes.com
Defect in Oreshnik’s Soviet-Era Guidance System Causes Serious Accuracy Issues – Report - The Moscow Times
Shortly after the unveiling of the Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile in 2024, President Vladimir Putin boasted that the medium-range weapon was a state-of-the-art Russian creation, not an upgrade of a Soviet-era system.
www.themoscowtimes.com
Even the navigation of Chinas Hypersonic missiles rely heavily on satellites ,what happens if these satelites themselves are attacked early and should Australia have that ability to protect itself with anti satellite weapons
China's YJ-20 hypersonic missile tilting Pacific's naval balance - Asia Times
Footage broadcast by Chinese state television in July showed a YJ-20 hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile fired from the vertical launch system of a
asiatimes.com
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Absolutely. That ability should also protect us from long range ballistic missiles.With regards to hypersonic ballistic missiles especially Russian Zircon is there an accuracy issue that allow them to be dismissed by ships at sea
Defect in Oreshnik’s Soviet-Era Guidance System Causes Serious Accuracy Issues – Report - The Moscow Times
Shortly after the unveiling of the Oreshnik hypersonic ballistic missile in 2024, President Vladimir Putin boasted that the medium-range weapon was a state-of-the-art Russian creation, not an upgrade of a Soviet-era system.
Even the navigation of Chinas Hypersonic missiles rely heavily on satellites ,what happens if these satelites themselves are attacked early and should Australia have that ability to protect itself with anti satellite weapons
China's YJ-20 hypersonic missile tilting Pacific's naval balance - Asia Times
Footage broadcast by Chinese state television in July showed a YJ-20 hypersonic anti-ship ballistic missile fired from the vertical launch system of a
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
A question without notice. What are your considered opinions on the best weapon fits for the Evolved Capes and OPVs if things go south and get nasty? What could conceivably be fitted?
We have a bunch of 25mms and can produce both the NSM missile+launcher in 2027.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Seeing as how the Evolved Capes are only a patrol boat could NSM conceivably be fitted? On an OPV, certainly.
Austal Lethal Cape class - Naval News
7 minutes in…
Between Navy and ABF, should be a mix of 31 Capes(10)/ECapes(21) by 2030/31, although the first 10 will probably be retired pretty quickly from early 2030s.
Last edited:
A question that could be asked for all of the RAN vessels.
Austal have certainly pitched the concept of an up gunned Cape with a 30mm gun upfront and a NSM launcher in lieu of one or two of the ships RHIBs
While many may see this as a waste of limited resources ,Austal would not pitch the idea if they didn’t believe the engineering was achievable or there was not a market for such a proposal.
I must confess I’m open to the idea but would prefer NLOS Spike missiles as a preferred fit out as I feel that is more appropriate for likely contingency’s.
I’d also like to see a small UAV capability for this class.
Of consideration I’m wondering if the space for the ship boats could alternatively have deployable survey or MCM equipment embarked where needed?
With 24 landing craft to be built, small escorts will be necessary and in numbers the majors will never satisfy
The patrol boat culture developed over the decades needs to evolve with the times and acknowledge greater flexibility in tasking.
Cheers S
Lots of different options. Many of the manufacturers have suggested various options.
Some will say the resources aren’t there so it‘s not possible. Financially perhaps fair enough, though I doubt even that.
We can build the entire vessels from the keel up, but putting a weapon on it? Impossible apparently...
It does strike me as passing strange that below is better armed than more than 50% of the entire RAN, including the ship it is about to be loaded onto, and yet there were seemingly few to no resource challenges in mounting those weapon systems…
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
The recoil would blow it into the next century!!!!
Just beat my post
Interesting how far forward they have placed the 30 mm on the ship’s model
Is that correct or an oversight
Cheers S
Its real, it's how the RDN move Stanflex modules around their bases
Imagine where we would be today if we had adopted ADIs patrol boat proposal based on the Stanflex 300, instead of going with Austal.
Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia Flyvefisken-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia
In the early 2000s, Australian Defence Industries (ADI) submitted a formal proposal for the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) replacement patrol boat program (Project SEA 1444). ADI proposed a localized variant of the Royal Danish Navy's Standard Flex 300 (Stanflex 300 / Flyvefisken class) multi-role vessel. [1, 2, 3, 4]
The bid positioned itself as a highly flexible, structurally advanced alternative to conventional metal-hulled patrol boats.
Key Details of the ADI Stanflex 300 Proposal
Direct Comparison: ADI Bid vs. Winning Austal/DMS Bid
The project tender was highly competitive. ADI's innovative approach went head-to-head with traditional shipbuilders like Tenix and the eventual winner, the Austal/DMS partnership. [1]
Why the ADI Proposal Was Not Selected
While the Stanflex 300 was highly regarded globally for its modular genius, the RAN ultimately favored Austal's design. The primary drivers were upfront acquisition costs and fuel economy. Austal demonstrated that their commercial-derived aluminium monohull design significantly reduced through-life fuel expenditures. Additionally, the RAN’s primary requirement under SEA 1444 was strict, dedicated border patrol and immigration interception, making the costly plug-and-play warfighting capabilities of the Stanflex modules over-engineered for the specific mission profile.
The bid positioned itself as a highly flexible, structurally advanced alternative to conventional metal-hulled patrol boats.
Key Details of the ADI Stanflex 300 Proposal
- The Hull Design: Unlike competitors proposing steel or aluminium, ADI proposed building the vessels out of advanced composite materials (Glass-Reinforced Plastic / GRP). This leveraged ADI's specialized composite production facility in Newcastle, NSW, which had successfully constructed the RAN’s Huon-class minehunters. GRP offered zero galvanic corrosion and lower structural maintenance. [1, 2, 3]
- Vessel Specifications: ADI’s adapted design featured a length of 53 meters, a top speed of 25 knots in sea state 4, and came equipped with a standard 25 mm deck gun. [1]
- The Stanflex Modularity System: The primary selling point was the Danish Standard Flex (StanFlex) system. The ship used standardized slots (one forward, three aft) that allowed containerized mission modules—such as surveillance systems, minelaying equipment, or anti-submarine warfare gear—to be swapped using a crane in under an hour. [1]
Direct Comparison: ADI Bid vs. Winning Austal/DMS Bid
The project tender was highly competitive. ADI's innovative approach went head-to-head with traditional shipbuilders like Tenix and the eventual winner, the Austal/DMS partnership. [1]
| Feature / Dimension | ADI Stanflex 300 Proposal | Austal / DMS Proposal (Winner) |
|---|---|---|
| Vessel Outcome | Eliminated in tender. | Selected; became the Armidale-class patrol boat. |
| Hull Material | Glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) composite. | Aluminium monohull. |
| Primary Advantage | High multi-mission versatility (via swappable modules) and corrosion resistance. | 21% reduction in fuel consumption and significantly lower upfront build costs. |
| Construction Hub | Newcastle, New South Wales. | Henderson, Western Australia. |
Why the ADI Proposal Was Not Selected
While the Stanflex 300 was highly regarded globally for its modular genius, the RAN ultimately favored Austal's design. The primary drivers were upfront acquisition costs and fuel economy. Austal demonstrated that their commercial-derived aluminium monohull design significantly reduced through-life fuel expenditures. Additionally, the RAN’s primary requirement under SEA 1444 was strict, dedicated border patrol and immigration interception, making the costly plug-and-play warfighting capabilities of the Stanflex modules over-engineered for the specific mission profile.
Just a bug bear of mine.
We complain of gilding and going over the top on the high end, then we insist on polishing turds on the low end.
In my book, a dozen high end ships, I don't care if we call them destroyers, cruisers or frigates, plus a dozen GP platforms, and two dozen minor warfare vessels is the minimum a country with Australias geography should have.
I despise the Armidales and Capes, not because of what they are intended as, but because of how shit they are at what they are actually meant to be. We set a very low bar for them in terms of capability, then accepted something demonstratably worse.
There were so many better options, including very nice steel hulled designs from Forgacs, AMECON and ASC, as well as the affore mentioned ADI offering. All of them were better shipbuilders too with their own workforces, not a foriegn workforce FIFO'd in on 457 visas.
The fact Austals designed in crappy shittiness has become the new gold standard sends me into dispare.
We complain of gilding and going over the top on the high end, then we insist on polishing turds on the low end.
In my book, a dozen high end ships, I don't care if we call them destroyers, cruisers or frigates, plus a dozen GP platforms, and two dozen minor warfare vessels is the minimum a country with Australias geography should have.
I despise the Armidales and Capes, not because of what they are intended as, but because of how shit they are at what they are actually meant to be. We set a very low bar for them in terms of capability, then accepted something demonstratably worse.
There were so many better options, including very nice steel hulled designs from Forgacs, AMECON and ASC, as well as the affore mentioned ADI offering. All of them were better shipbuilders too with their own workforces, not a foriegn workforce FIFO'd in on 457 visas.
The fact Austals designed in crappy shittiness has become the new gold standard sends me into dispare.