Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ASSAIL]

I understand the points that Todjaeger has made and i've been through them before. Again i say it is a THEORETICAL proposition, there are plenty of former high ranking RAN members and ASPI papers that suggest an increase in hull numbers is not only desirable but necessary so i am hardly alone, this was just a proposal that might help alleviate said issues whilst remaining under our current manpower constraints, nothing more.

There is a reason why the RAN has selected platforms with increased lethality, better survivability and greater endurance than the corvettes described in the posts above.

Platforms aren’t chosen on a whim or according to the flavour of the month, they are chosen to comply with the ADFs “Future Maritime Operating Concept 2025” which describes the Joint OPCONs for the Maritime domain.
I have linked the Unrestricted version and it’s a 24 page doc but one of the most relevant paragraphs states, “the Enduring protection of a maritime force describes its ability to defend against attack, survive the damage inflicted by the attack and subsequently counter attack. The employment of each maritime force element (ship) within the maritime JTF determines its capability requirements for each of these three aspects of Enduring Protection. Enduring Protection asserts that every maritime force element must have a level of survivability and self protection against a threshold set of threats and must contribute to a layered approach to force protection and the preservation of maritime combat power within the future maritime JTG.”

It’s a motherhood statement but all future acquisitions must comply with the principles described within. If read it may prevent many of the left field proposals often sought for inclusion into the RAN or any of the ADF maritime theatre participants.

http://www.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/FMOC_2025_Unclassified.pdf

 

[JBRobbo]

I can understand the appeal of a 2k to 3k tonne ship but their will still be trade off's in capability.
Maybe the question is what level of harms way do you send a ship. If it is to sail with a blue water fleet under the umbrella of the major fleet units it needs to be an asset not a liability to the fleet.
In a high end conflict then ngatimozarts suggestion is probably the minimum in size and load out.
The question still is it an asset or liability?
Others would be better qualified to answer and I would be interested in the feedback
If yes, then maybe reduce the OPV's to 9 and build 3 to 6 such GP frigates.
But please leave the major units as is for a total of twelve destroyers.
I'm mindful these GP Frigates will still be expensive ships
.

Regards S

Have you not read any of the previous posts? You have added zero whilst repeating everything previously said more or less, then suggesting the same?

 

[JBRobbo]

On a different note, Todjaeger, Ngatimozart and Assail, do you think later batches of the Hunter's will have another 16-48-cell Ml41 VLS in place or partial place of the mission bay?

 

[ngatimozart]

Have you not read any of the previous posts? You have added zero whilst repeating everything previously said more or less, then suggesting the same?

@JBRobbo I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because you're a newbie here, but this time only. BLUE TAGs indicate members who are verified defence professionals so do have some familiarity with what they are talking about. Secondly Stampede has been a long term member of some standing here who is reasonably knowledgeable upon defence matters. Thirdly, if you start coming the raw prawn here you will be sailing into dangerous waters and the Moderators get real grumpy with posters who have raw prawn attitudes.

Why Stampede is "repeating the same" is because that what the GOTD has determined will be the RAN FFG fleet. We also do not tolerate fantasy fleets or discussions and inevitably that is where theoretical discussions lead.

 

[hairyman]

I have been thinking along the lines of Corvettes for the RAN. But of higher priority I would think would be the addition of numbers to our larger ships. An idea would be for the first two or three Hunter class to be enlarged and with additional weapons to DDG status, but keep the Hunter numbers to nine. Thus increasing the fleet to 14/15 surface combatants. If things get nasty in our area I believe the extra ships would be needed.

 

[seaspear]

I thought the Hunter class were produced in batches with the option of modification to runs to meet then needs

 

[ASSAIL]

I thought I might post this to the RNZAF thread for ngati to feel warm and smug but decided to post here so Spaz could turn apoplectic.

This is the fate of fixed wing in the RANFAA, all due to a decision made by the Hawke government and led by Bomber Beasley whom I admire greatly but not for this decision.

 

[Todjaeger]

I understand the points that Todjaeger has made and i've been through them before. Again i say it is a THEORETICAL proposition, there are plenty of former high ranking RAN members and ASPI papers that suggest an increase in hull numbers is not only desirable but necessary so i am hardly alone, this was just a proposal that might help alleviate said issues whilst remaining under our current manpower constraints, nothing more.

I am honestly left with the impression that some of the points I have been trying to make have not been understood.

Yes all true, but we're not talking about the 90m/1,840t K-130 Braunschweig with a range of 2,500nm, zero ASW capability and zero local area air defence capability. We're talking about a 100m/2,400t corvette with a practically identical weapon and sensor suite to an ANZAC frigate with the same range as a Hobart DDG and an endurance of at least 14 days, which could likely be further bolstered with increased cold storage facilities etc. as was done with the Hobart class. Of all the corvettes in the world it is clear why you would pick the Braunschweig class for comparison, because they're hardly comparable. Why not the Malaysian Kedah class based on the MEKO A-100 with a range of 6,000nm and an endurance of 21 days? Furthermore you have slightly fudged the numbers in several of your posts to seemingly further strengthen your argument. I never said my proposal was right or wrong, it was merely a theoretical proposition, which you are clearly strongly against for solid reasons which is perfectly fine. Yes it certainly doesn't have the space, weight or power reserves for future upgrades as the Hunter's do, but instead i can be in two places instead of one. Is it as acoustically quiet as a Hunter class? probably not depending on the propulsion setup, but it sure as hell presents a smaller radar signature. Does it have SM-2/SM-6? no, but is that crucial for every combatant anyway? Plenty of capable modern combatants in our region without long range AAW, i.e. Talwar, Sovremenny, Type 054A....you name it.

Actually, we are not discussing a corvette as described above, because it ignores several realities. None of the information publicly available (at least that I could find) provides any sort of weapons load out, sea keeping ability, endurance, etc.

The information available so far is why types of flexible roles the vessel is anticipated as being capable of performing, the number (10) standard TEU mission modules, the overall length and beam, displacement, range @15 kts, max speed and crew size, hangar able to take a 12 tonne helicopter or UAV, and possibly a few other comparatively minor specs that I have forgotten to list.

Unfortunately this lack of more specific information means that we do not know what the mission modules are, and therefore we do not know their individual and collective capabilities. So far, while the Danes seem to have done a good job developing their StanFlex mission modules, the word which comes to my mind when describing the mission modules for the USN's LCS programme sounds similar to "flustercuck". Since the mission modules listed by Saab are based on standard TEU, they sound more like what the LCS mission modules were originally planned to be, before reality struck.

Now for an injection of reality. One cannot simply take the weapons, electronics and combat system fitout out of a 3,600+ tonne vessel and cram it into another vessel which is ~18 m shorter, 1 m shallower draught, and displaces ~1,400 tonnes less, having half the crew and get a vessel which has a comparable level of sea keeping and combat performance as the original 3,600 tonne vessel.

As for why I used a K-130 as an example, I did so because several of the Flex Patrol 98 performance parameters which are available are the same or comparable to the K-130, while others are different but not grossly so. The two corvettes are listed with the same max speed, 26 kts, and both have published ranges when transiting at 15 kts, these ranges are 5,000 n miles for the Flex Patrol 98, and 4,000 n miles for the K-130. Given the lower displacement and smaller dimensions of a K-130 when compared to a Flex Patrol 98, it seems a safe assumption that the amount of fuel required for a K-130 to transit those 4,000 n miles @15 kts is going to be less than a Flex Patrol 98 would require to transit 5,000 n miles @15 kts. After all there is less mass to move, and less surface area to displace water through. Now could I have used the Malaysian Kedah-class OPV as an example instead? Certainly I could have, since the size and potential armament is comparable. Which sort of gets at my point, a 76 mm main gun, some AShM, and a 21-cell RAM launcher is not as capable (by a significant margin) as that of an ANZAC-class frigate with a 127 mm main gun, AShM, LWT's, and 32 ESSM which has a considerably greater engagement envelope than RAM. The original theoretical proposal was to replace some of the Hunter-class frigates which themselves are intended to be significantly more capable than the ANZAC-class, with twice the number of corvettes.

One of the major points which I have been trying, and apparently repeatedly failing at making, is what sort of combat systems a corvette could realistically expect to fit while also having the published range, dimensions and displacement. Again, the suggested 2,400 ton (~2,200 tonnes) corvette has a displacement slightly more than 60% of an ANZAC-class frigate, which will have a tremendous impact on the quantity and capability of fitted systems when compared to one of the currently upgraded FFH's. In order to properly evaluate the proposed idea, one needs to look at what actual capabilities the corvette would really be able to have, and then see whether those capabilities fit within the RAN/ADF conops, and whether they could substitute the capabilities to be provided by Hunter-class frigates. A theoretical discussion does no one any good if a significant portion of the starting premise is wrong, and so far that seems to be the case here.

 

[ngatimozart]

I thought I might post this to the RNZAF thread for ngati to feel warm and smug but decided to post here so Spaz could turn apoplectic.

This is the fate of fixed wing in the RANFAA, all due to a decision made by the Hawke government and led by Bomber Beasley whom I admire greatly but not for this decision.

No feeling warm and smug on my part because about 14 years later the same thing happened in NZ.

 

[PeterM]

The February issue of DTR magazine has an article on the options for the pacific support ship.

There is also an article on the USMC interest in the 70m Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) by Australian company Sea Transport Solutions. The vessel has a 1,650t cargo capacity and area for 9 Abrams and 3 LAV-25s.

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would rather we go the other way. An all cruiser surface combatant fleet. Lengthen the Hunters ~10m pushing them up to 10,000t. Providing space for more VLS, more sensors, more command and embarked, more flexibility, more power, more range.

The ANZACs are at the very limit of what is capable in a smaller hull. We already have those. A less capable Corrvette some 500-1000t lighter doesn't seem to solve any of our problems. We also have the OPV comming up, at ~1700t. So its a pretty small niche to hit with a corvette. As we consolidate roles with the OPV coming on line it is possible we could make a batch of some improved OPV's. Suitable for heavy piracy, amphibious insertion etc. But are we better off rolling that into more Hunters.

 

[hauritz]

I would rather we go the other way. An all cruiser surface combatant fleet. Lengthen the Hunters ~10m pushing them up to 10,000t. Providing space for more VLS, more sensors, more command and embarked, more flexibility, more power, more range.

The ANZACs are at the very limit of what is capable in a smaller hull. We already have those. A less capable Corrvette some 500-1000t lighter doesn't seem to solve any of our problems. We also have the OPV comming up, at ~1700t. So its a pretty small niche to hit with a corvette. As we consolidate roles with the OPV coming on line it is possible we could make a batch of some improved OPV's. Suitable for heavy piracy, amphibious insertion etc. But are we better off rolling that into more Hunters.

I can see Australia eventually going down the corvette route however probably not until the Arafura class fall due for replacement. I am guessing the hull life for the Arafura will be around 20 years so Australia will start looking around for a replacement around the late thirties early forties which will be around the same time our region will be crawling with Chinese submarines and Aircraft carriers.

In the shorter term I think the Arafura will be adequate for the sorts of missions it will be expected to undertake.

I think something to consider is that the Arafura will also have a sizable aft deck and the ability to launch and recover AUVs, ROVs, USVs and UAVs. Add to that the 9LV combat management system and you already have the makings of a pretty capable little warship.

 

[hauritz]

The February issue of DTR magazine has an article on the options for the pacific support ship.

There is also an article on the USMC interest in the 70m Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) by Australian company Sea Transport Solutions. The vessel has a 1,650t cargo capacity and area for 9 Abrams and 3 LAV-25s.

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1

There hasn't been a whole lot of released information about the Pacific Support Ship but if this article is anything to go by then it seems that it could tie in with Australia's seemingly abandoned plans to replace the LCHs. Having said that I think something like the LST 120 is just too small.

The more I think about it the more I believe that maybe the Choules would be the quickest and easiest option. Perhaps just transfer the Choules to the fulltime HADR role and replace it with a more capable ship for the navy's strategic sealift role.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would rather we go the other way. An all cruiser surface combatant fleet. Lengthen the Hunters ~10m pushing them up to 10,000t. Providing space for more VLS, more sensors, more command and embarked, more flexibility, more power, more range.

The ANZACs are at the very limit of what is capable in a smaller hull. We already have those. A less capable Corrvette some 500-1000t lighter doesn't seem to solve any of our problems. We also have the OPV comming up, at ~1700t. So its a pretty small niche to hit with a corvette. As we consolidate roles with the OPV coming on line it is possible we could make a batch of some improved OPV's. Suitable for heavy piracy, amphibious insertion etc. But are we better off rolling that into more Hunters.

At 3,600 tonnes or ~4,000 tons, the ANZAC-class FFH is about 1,600 tons greater than the suggested corvette. That would strongly suggest a fairly significant capability gap between the two. I agree that further improvements to the ANZAC-class would be difficult to accomplish, partially due to the size and displacement, but also due to the layout. If the MEKO 200 design used had the Mk 41 VLS located immediately aft of the 127 mm gun firing from the same deck level instead of immediately aft of the funnels and two decks higher up, then there would likely have been less stability and topweight issues.

If the OPV's are going to end up getting tasked with more of the pointy ended constabulary missions than just EEZ and anti-SIEV patrolling then armaments and defences more substantial than a 40 mm gun and some M2's are going to be required. However, that would still fall well short of an OPV or corvette being adequate to screen/escort high value and/or civilian shipping that could be subject to targeting by hostile aerial, surface, and/or subsurface threats, which is what the current major warship fleet is intended to do.

 

[seaspear]

There are a number of suggestions on larger ships that could be used for the constabulary roles if I understand this correctly , but the Arafura class has a complement of forty ,a larger vessel would usually have a larger complement , The navy I expect would prefer to use small warships for these roles than larger expensive ones .
There could be an argument for some corvette sized vessels for more involved naval duties ,but a small production run could be expensive and hard to justify as a priority

 

[Redlands18]

There hasn't been a whole lot of released information about the Pacific Support Ship but if this article is anything to go by then it seems that it could tie in with Australia's seemingly abandoned plans to replace the LCHs. Having said that I think something like the LST 120 is just too small.

The more I think about it the more I believe that maybe the Choules would be the quickest and easiest option. Perhaps just transfer the Choules to the fulltime HADR role and replace it with a more capable ship for the navy's strategic sealift role.

The DTR article tended to concentrate heavily on the Disaster Relef missions and while it is very important the RAN seems to have enough resources to be able to handle the times they have been called out and it only happens once every 2-3 years at most. I think the Pacific Support Ship is going to be a lot more then that, I suspect it will have considerable Medical facilities, a decent capability to put Engineering eqpt ashore to be able to carry out Construction Projects, Road Building, Schools, Medical Facilities etc on the more remote Islands where the local Government don’t have the capacity to do it themselves.
It will have no Warfighting capability at all, no Weapons, no CMS, probably won’t even be Painted Gray. Probably built to Commercial standards and in a Shooting War would be designated and used as a Hospital Ship

 

[FormerDirtDart]

The February issue of DTR magazine has an article on the options for the pacific support ship.

There is also an article on the USMC interest in the 70m Stern Landing Vessel (SLV) by Australian company Sea Transport Solutions. The vessel has a 1,650t cargo capacity and area for 9 Abrams and 3 LAV-25s.

Defence Technology Review : DTR FEB 2019, Page 1

For gods sake man. It is possible to post a link to the articles page, so one doesn't have to go searching for them.

'US Marines eye Australian landing vessel design'

'Pacific Patrol Ship To Be On Call For Regional Duty'

Funny thing. When I stumbled on the USMC SLV article while searching for Land 400 vehicle numbers from the link over on the Australian Army thread I immediately thought of the Balikpapan replacements. Only to stumble onto the Pacific Support Ship article 4 pages later.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I can see an OPV being used for anti-piracy, and in areas with more security issues, like patrolling around Indonesia/Malaysia, the Arabian gulf. In that kind of mission, on top of the 40mm (which you may want to move to 57 or 76) you would want to embark a helicopter and a UAV(camcopter), mount some mini-typhoons and perhaps a CIWS like Phalanx. Maxing it out with some harpoon.

But that would be it. I don't see the mission for a corvette as such. Anything they are going to come in contact with is going to be big blue water stuff. They don't have the persistence to give Australia significant patrolling range, and corvette level firepower isn't going to be relevant in SEA out side of a friendlies EEZ, and even then within the EEZ, if its contested, probably not enough.

As for the Pacific ship. I feel that the SLV is a bit too much of just an amphibious landing ship. But would be quite good in a roll replacing the LCH. For the pacific ship I think something like the LST120 (or LST100 or LST80) would be much closer to the mark. Crew of 22 is very do able.. Being able to operate a helicopter I think is useful, thinking about the damage after tropical storms, airlifting, dropping food/medical supplies to remote villages etc. Its probably big enough to have an X-ray machine, ultrasound, some basic sample testing. Can embark 330, but I would imagine it would probably be reconfigured to offer improved medical so maybe just <250 people, but you could then offer a 4-6 bed ward maybe an operating theatre maybe 2 consult rooms. Like the medical facilitates off the larger enforcer designs (role 2+). Having the space enclosed means it can be used for multiple purposes as well, not just hauling equipment.

You could set up a proper carpentry workshop to pre-fab construction, or beach the whole ship and make it a walk in hospital, people can get checked/treated for parasites/common diseases, or whatever.

ASPI had a piece on gaps in the NSP, particularly with small ships.
Is this the near future of Australian naval shipbuilding? | The Strategist

A LST120 would go a long way to plugging that. Similar displacement to the OPV's would be doable at Henderson. Would be a useful ship. Don't know if I would use the word large to describe it. But certainly going below 120m would be getting pretty small.

 

[76mmGuns]

Australia currently sends ANZACS to do anti piracy and drug interdiction work. I've noted a few articles saying that Australia should stop doing that, as we need the ANZACs closer to home, and they are overkill for police work.

In the next 15 years, we will have the Arafura's and Hunter's. Has there been any talk in perhaps building a few more Arafura's so they can go to the Middle East , and we keep the Hunter's and Hobart's for higher end work? Or will the RAN still send the Hobart's/Hunter's for anti piracy work? Arafura's really do seem perfect for that type of work.

 

[Todjaeger]

Australia currently sends ANZACS to do anti piracy and drug interdiction work. I've noted a few articles saying that Australia should stop doing that, as we need the ANZACs closer to home, and they are overkill for police work.

In the next 15 years, we will have the Arafura's and Hunter's. Has there been any talk in perhaps building a few more Arafura's so they can go to the Middle East , and we keep the Hunter's and Hobart's for higher end work? Or will the RAN still send the Hobart's/Hunter's for anti piracy work? Arafura's really do seem perfect for that type of work.

I suspect it will depend on the area of operations and what those potential conditions are. Given the present state of portions of the Mideast, I would not consider one of the FFH's to be "overkill" for the area. For actual operations against some of the pirate groups/motherships that have operated off the Horn of Africa and into the Indian Ocean coverage by 20 mm to 40 mm guns should be fine. However if one is passing by portions of the Yemen coast, I would certainly want some air defence capability given the conflict there coupled with the presence of land-based AShM which Houthi rebels have been known to launch at shipping.

In circumstances like that, while the constabulary work does not require air defence capabilities, the security environment of the region can. Personally I think the Hobart-class should be kept closer to Australia when not deployed as part of a multi-ship task force simply because the RAN will only have three of them. By keeping them close to Australia whenever possible, should something arise where the RAN needs to send a task force somewhere requiring area air defence, a destroyer would likely be close at hand or could be more easily re-tasked to act as a task force member.