Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

China does face a demographic problem that will certainly hit home around the 2030s to the 2040s. I am not sure how this will affect the rest of the region. It could have the effect of starving the military of funds as their work base shrinks and the cost of dealing with an ageing population sucks up the rest of their funding. In that case the Chinese military threat might just go away of its own accord.

You appear to be basing your argument on a western bias that military funding will be reduced to increase social expenditure, which is exactly what a western govt would do to ensure it's continued time in govt through the ballot box and reduce potential for civil discontent which would also be expressed through the ballot box and on various media.

However, in the PRC the PLA, PLAN, PLAAF, Rocket Forces, Peoples Armed Police, MSS, the various Peoples Militias, and other security organs do not belong to the State, but to the CCP. Therefore the Politburo of the CCP will prioritise funding and resources to that which will ensure their survival and the continual absolute control of the CCP over China above all else. That's how it has been since 1949 and is always their first priority.

My point is that you cannot assume something this serious through a western lense. You have to look at it through a Chinese CCP lense.

 

[oldsig127]

Mate, I disagree with your analogy/comparison of the future DDG replacement and NZ acquiring LHD/F-35Bs.

Yes certainly there will be a lot of water pass under keels between now and when the DDGs are due to be replaced, but there is the matter of the Government's continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan to consider.

Assuming (and yes assuming makes an ass out of oneself), but assuming that future Governments (of either the Left or Right), don't screw with the NSP, then that is a pretty good reason to assume that 'something' will be built following the completion of the Hunter class.


Cheers,

There's no need for assumptions (aside from political interference) because there have been repeated explanations that the Hunters would be followed by the AWD replacements, that the OPVs will be followed by other small combatants and then by the OPV replacements, including at length by Chief of Navy to thick politicians in Senate estimates.

I have no idea how people can't remember this between approximately fortnightly repetition

oldsig

 

[oldsig127]

While we will never turn them into a battle ship, it may be prudent to explore their military potential sooner rather than later.
Crawl, walk, run and all that!

Regards S

Thirty years is a long time. Let's get the bloody things in the water before deciding to upgrade them. At *least* consider that today's, even next decade's latest and greatest will likely be as useful as a muzzle loading cannon by then.

oldsig

 

[ASSAIL]

There's no need for assumptions (aside from political interference) because there have been repeated explanations that the Hunters would be followed by the AWD replacements, that the OPVs will be followed by other small combatants and then by the OPV replacements, including at length by Chief of Navy to thick politicians in Senate estimates.

I have no idea how people can't remember this between approximately fortnightly repetition

oldsig

Thanks for getting the “China demographic” thread back on track to the RAN.
And yes, probably weekly repetition between the other chaff.

 

[Massive]

I have no idea how people can't remember this between approximately fortnightly repetition oldsig

I find this pictogram really useful as a memory tool - busy until 2055...

Regards,

Massive



@Massive Can you please provide a source for the image. Nice informative image. Ngati.

 

[spoz]

Note it says “surface combatants”, not “more Sea 5000”. There hasn’t been a disagreement about whether there is the (current) intent in the continuous ship building program to build more surface combatants after completion of the Hunters, including DDG replacements, just on whether (or not) they will be a continuation or development of the T26 hull form. That, CN has most emphatically not said - and cannot say given it is a decision for a future government.

The original source of Masive’s diagram is the Naval Shipbuilding Plan,
http://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipBuilding/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf, Figure 2.1, although it’s been modified a bit.

 

[Stampede]

Thirty years is a long time. Let's get the bloody things in the water before deciding to upgrade them. At *least* consider that today's, even next decade's latest and greatest will likely be as useful as a muzzle loading cannon by then.

oldsig

Oldsig

I can understand the scepticism,I really can.

I'm just very guarded that the Arafura class will be treated like the latest incarnation of patrol boats to serve in the same old role.
Two things are different.
One the vessels themselves
and
Two the Geo political environment.

Without a doubt the Arafura Class are a seismic leap in size / weight and potential over their predecessors.
The Attack / Fremantle / Armidale's boats, are just not in the same league as a OPV.
A full sized flight deck ( Sorry, Utility Deck ) for a medium sized helicopter.
On board space and weight for two decent sized UAV's
Three large 8.5 RHIB's.
Plus space and weight to add additional systems,crew and weapons.
The Arafura class may be used initially as patrol boats, but they will no doubt be called upon to do so much more than their predecessors
Navy will need to have that cultural mindset early in the new ships lives to prepare for what challenges that may unfortunately be thrust upon them.


As to the Geo/political, but for the challenges of a strong Indonesian navy in the 1960's, our immediate region in the 70's / 80's / 90's looked "relatively" safe compared to a look through the political eyeglass of today.
The Arafura Class will sail in this challenged environment.

So yes I get the muzzle loading comment and I get you can only do so much with a ship the size of an OPV.
But the reality is the ANZAC Class are still in the water for many,many years ahead, the Hunter Class and our much trumpeted new Dozen subs are still light years away.
The reality is the first of the Arafura Class are to be in the water in a couple of years and down the track these ships will shoulder a lot of the military load that the patrol boats never had expected of them.

Suggest we look at that spare space and weight on the OPV's in the coming decade and not the decade after.


Regards S

 

[KiwiRob]

Cobber, probably wrong analogy, but was aimed specifically at the T26 hull claims for AWD replacement. Yes, definitely AWD replacements will be built after the Hunter Class builds are completed, but anyone claiming that the T26 is going to be the odds on favourite for the AWD replacement is way off base at the moment, because the RAN won't even be considering it at the moment.

There is talk of a version of an AWD Type 26 to replace the 45’s in UK service, it would make some sense for the Aussies to join this program if it ever happens.

 

[hauritz]

The Australian version of theType 26 will already be a fairly capable air warfare vessel. Other than increasing the missile loadout there wouldn't be that much more work required to turn it into a proper AWD.

 

[OldNavy63]

From the RCN thread:

They would make great memorials or sculptures at a park or in-front of a museum. I am surprised France purchased some from the Canadians recently, I thought they would have a special deal with the Italians. Parts are still available, and these guns could probably be upgraded to more modern specifications.

Canada bought near 40 year old fighter planes.

Age isn't a huge issue for guns. New barrel and bits and pieces and they can be as reliable and as accurate as a new one. Actually with my experience with civilian arms, old guns can become favorites, because they tend to loosen up nicely with age and wear in all the right places (except barrel wear, but I treat that as more of a consumable) and become more reliable and slick. Navies have kept guns active for very long periods, so I don't see age as a huge issue.

I think Australia still has theirs in storage from all the decommissioned FFGs. We were still operating the FFG's until recently, I wonder if Australia will keep these or if they might dispose of them as well.

So I assume Canada is getting out the 76mm round completely and doesn't see it in its future at all.

In 2017 the RAN still had the 76mm at the West Head Gunnery Range in Victoria. The last time I went there they had a twin 4.5” mount operating as well (the first time I visited they probably had the original 4” cannons operating ). Yep, heaven help any errant Chinese CVBG on FONOPS off the Victorian coast back in those days!

West Head Gunnery Range Flinders community visit and PWO50 Course

With the last two Adelaide-class FFGs paying off and rumoured to be sold, perhaps the stored 76mm may form a job lot?

 

[Massive]

The original source of Masive’s diagram is the Naval Shipbuilding Plan,
http://www.defence.gov.au/NavalShipBuilding/Docs/NavalShipbuildingPlan.pdf, Figure 2.1, although it’s been modified a bit.

Yes - that's the source. And yes, due to time constraints I just used google images so did not snip it form the original.

The plan is worth a read if interested.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Massive]

I'm just very guarded that the Arafura class will be treated like the latest incarnation of patrol boats to serve in the same old role.Regards S

The RAN has been very careful to avoid suggestions that the Arafura class are anything other than OPVs - and to avoid the specification & cost blowing out.

My view is that these vessels should have a secondary combat role - though for mine that would be minelaying and stand off minesweeping. To this end I would like to see them with a for but not with self-defense capability that includes a Millenium gun, SeaRam and Nulka. However, the standard fitout (the with) would be two 25mm RWS suitable for the OPV role.

Don't see a need for a hangar or for a UAV though.

Regards,

Massive

 

[justinterested]

In the latest APDR magazine, there are contradictory statements regarding the flight deck on the OPV. A quote from Luerssen CEO, Jens Nielsen, states the flight deck is not helicopter capable because it was not asked for. However, the main article details how the OPV can be used for helicopter operations. I was wondering if anyone one has more information?

 

[spoz]

Depends on the type of helicopter and the level to which it is desired to operate it. Any flat surface can be a deck for a helicopter within the environmental envelope for which it can be certified. However, the weight of the helicopter has a significant impact; a deck suitable for an AS350 (not that we have any now) would be quite different to one certified for a CH-47. The landing aids, etc, incorporated in the platform also have a significant bearing on the matter. So do you want to operate a large or a small helicopter, and at night it lousy weather or just in benign conditions during the day? An uniformed guess is that the OPV could be able to be certified for vertrep and probably to a simple level of landing and take off for a light (and possibly a medium) helicopter. Not sure if they are planning for it to be HIFR capable or not.

 

[76mmGuns]

Regarding the minehunters, is the Luerssen OPV 80 going to the basis of them? Using it to launch unmanned minehunting drones, like the Dutch version from the French will?

 

[oldsig127]

Regarding the minehunters, is the Luerssen OPV 80 going to the basis of them? Using it to launch unmanned minehunting drones, like the Dutch version from the French will?

The Rudd government White Paper suggested a common hull and that has often been extrapolated to mean that the OPV hull might be the basis for next gen Mine Hunting and Hydro ships but I'd be cautious about believing that because since the current white paper there have been announcements which appear to leave the designs open to entirely new vessels

oldsig

 

[Takao]

Regarding the minehunters, is the Luerssen OPV 80 going to the basis of them? Using it to launch unmanned minehunting drones, like the Dutch version from the French will?

Neither I, nor my mine-warfare co-worker, are particularly sold on metal hulls for mine hunters. But then again, the whole trade has been paid off so much over recent times (buy the USN too), it would be nice to see some re-investment there....

Just not metal

 

[John Fedup]

There are several fibreglass yacht builders that could produce hulls large enough for mine hunting applications.

 

[ngatimozart]

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK. THE OPVs ARE JUST THAT OPVs. NOT SWISS ARMY KNIVES OR TRANSFORMERS THAT CAN PERFORM 1,001 DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED ROLES. SO NO MORE DISCUSSION OF FANTASY ROLES FOR THE OPVs.

SAME GOES FOR THE AWD REPLACEMENTS. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THE MOMENT IS JUST PURE SPECULATION.

THE MODERATORS HAVE BECOME REALLY ANNOYED WITH THIS BEHAVIOUR OF WHAT IF FANTASY FLEETS / SHIPS AND IT SEEMS MOSTLY TO OCCUR IN THE RAN THREAD. WE HAVE DEF PROS COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS AND WE AGREE WITH THEM.

THEREFORE, IF THERE IS A CONTINUATION OF THIS BEHAVIOUR, WE WILL LOCK THE RAN THREAD FOR AN UNDETERMINED PERIOD OF TIME.

THIS IS NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

 

[Massive]

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK...THIS IS NOT OPEN FOR DISCUSSION.

Can I PM you.

Regards,

Massive