Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[old faithful]

Maybe name them after gold fields?
Kiandra, Pine Creek, Arltunga, Kalgoorlie, Palmer, Etc

 

[Stampede]

Not forgetting the eight Cape Class vessels, the Ocean Shield and Thaiyak (stationed at Ashmore Reef) which are all armed with 50 cals. A 50 cal HMG is more than enough to shred a fishing boat.

Patrol vessels (abf.gov.au)

On top of this are the Cape Class being built as a contingency for the RAN (plus the two already in service with the RAN) pending the Arafura's coming on stream and the disposal of the ACPB. There will be a total of 16 Capes between Border Force and the RAN. If these are in good condition when no longer needed they may pass down to Border Force once the RAN focus on the Arafura (or they may remain in RAN service). As far as I can tell there is no formal indication of what the long term future of the Navy Capes.

No doubt a 50 cal will play havoc with a fishing boat but I'm still mindful that the Armidale Class were armed with the larger 25mm Typhoon.
A photo in a recent edition of Australian Warships depicts a model of a Cape Class with a 25mm bushmaster.
Not suggesting that this is what they will initially be fitted for, but see no probs with it being a future addition.
As the Armidales retire the 25mm Bushmasters could be bought over to the Navy operated Capes.

If this is done, it then begs the question then why not install them across all of the class.
Which further begs another question, as the same class of vessel are operated by two different Commonwealth departments doing the same job, why not consolidate them with either Navy or Boarder Force.

So who would get to operate this fleet of 18 Capes?


Regards S

 

[Stampede]

I'm not I understand a 40mm on OPV's. By using an EOIR fire control system you are wasting half of the 40mm capability (that being proper ranking and engagement of air targets). Seems over gunned for a ship that is supposed to intercept illegal migrants, arrest polluters and provide RMP. It's not a bad weapon by far, I quite like it, just in the right circumstances. Perhaps I'm missing something.

A 40mm future proofs Navy's options to do more things than what you can with a 25mm Typhoon.
It does not make it a battle ship, just a more robust OPV.



Regards S

 

[aussienscale]

With regards to the Arafura's we also need to keep in mind the force multiplier affect they will have up the line to our MFU's, they will actually be able to concentrate on what they are meant to do and what they are designed for, they should never have to be pulled for constabulary duties again !

The deep south being an exception of course

This is where the focus and chatter about up gunning/arming them is misguided fantasy, people are not understanding the bigger picture here and what they will do across the Navy as a whole.

Cheers

 

[alexsa]

As a former guide at the Australian National Maritime museum I wish they would bring back the great V & W destroyer names- Vampire, Voyager, Vendetta and Waterhen

Sorry missed a more important point. Unless something has changed Waterhen remains a shore establishment

HMAS Waterhen | Royal Australian Navy

 

[Git_Kraken]

With regards to the Arafura's we also need to keep in mind the force multiplier affect they will have up the line to our MFU's, they will actually be able to concentrate on what they are meant to do and what they are designed for, they should never have to be pulled for constabulary duties again !

The deep south being an exception of course

This is where the focus and chatter about up gunning/arming them is misguided fantasy, people are not understanding the bigger picture here and what they will do across the Navy as a whole.

Cheers

MFU? Stands for... Main fighting unit?

Freeing up a major warship away from constabulary duties is a very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect. It's more of increasing the availability of another asset.

A 40mm future proofs Navy's options to do more things than what you can with a 25mm Typhoon.
It does not make it a battle ship, just a more robust OPV.

Space, weight, and power reservation future-proof things. A weapon never does that. A weapon mount may do that if it's flexible enough (Mk 41 VLS is probably the best example). If you are arguing that a 40mm is able to do more tasks than a 25mm then I would agree that a 40mm was designed originally for AAW, so this is true. It can carry different shells. I assume the RAN purchased them for specific tasks within their own geopolitical and threat context.

I can fully understand the MCM ships having a 40mm. Something to shoot floating mines with that has both AP and HE rounds is a useful tool.

That's all I'm looking for here. The task a 40mm armed OPV is supposed to do that a 25mm armed OPV can't (all other things being equal), within the Australian context. If the weapon is a "nice to have" instead of a "need to have" I get that as well.

 

[Stampede]

MFU? Stands for... Main fighting unit?

Freeing up a major warship away from constabulary duties is a very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect. It's more of increasing the availability of another asset.



Space, weight, and power reservation future-proof things. A weapon never does that. A weapon mount may do that if it's flexible enough (Mk 41 VLS is probably the best example). If you are arguing that a 40mm is able to do more tasks than a 25mm then I would agree that a 40mm was designed originally for AAW, so this is true. It can carry different shells. I assume the RAN purchased them for specific tasks within their own geopolitical and threat context.

I can fully understand the MCM ships having a 40mm. Something to shoot floating mines with that has both AP and HE rounds is a useful tool.

That's all I'm looking for here. The task a 40mm armed OPV is supposed to do that a 25mm armed OPV can't (all other things being equal), within the Australian context. If the weapon is a "nice to have" instead of a "need to have" I get that as well.

I'm sure Navy could of continued with the 25mm to arm the future OPV's if they wanted.
They chose a larger weapon for a reason and yes a gun is not just a gun, its a package deal of all the things necessary to make it work.
And yes Space, weight, and power reservation future-proof things as well which appears the case in the Arafura Class.
Will watch the Arafuras with interest.


Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

MFU? Stands for... Main fighting unit?

Freeing up a major warship away from constabulary duties is a very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect. It's more of increasing the availability of another asset.



Space, weight, and power reservation future-proof things. A weapon never does that. A weapon mount may do that if it's flexible enough (Mk 41 VLS is probably the best example). If you are arguing that a 40mm is able to do more tasks than a 25mm then I would agree that a 40mm was designed originally for AAW, so this is true. It can carry different shells. I assume the RAN purchased them for specific tasks within their own geopolitical and threat context.

I can fully understand the MCM ships having a 40mm. Something to shoot floating mines with that has both AP and HE rounds is a useful tool.

That's all I'm looking for here. The task a 40mm armed OPV is supposed to do that a 25mm armed OPV can't (all other things being equal), within the Australian context. If the weapon is a "nice to have" instead of a "need to have" I get that as well.

The RAN have a different CONOPS and operate in a completely different environment to the RCN. They face different threat matrixes and their OPVs will eventually have to deal with the Chinese fishing fleet, especially up around the top end when that Chinese company builds its fish processing plant in the western part of PNG just across the water from the Tiwi Islands in the Torres Strait. Canada doesn't face that or the boat people etc.

 

[Git_Kraken]

The RAN have a different CONOPS and operate in a completely different environment to the RCN. They face different threat matrixes and their OPVs will eventually have to deal with the Chinese fishing fleet, especially up around the top end when that Chinese company builds its fish processing plant in the western part of PNG just across the water from the Tiwi Islands in the Torres Strait. Canada doesn't face that or the boat people etc.

We do get boat people but it's usually once every decade or so and in smaller numbers than Australia. Our immigration issues come by plane and the southern border. Normally the RCN is tasked to escort/provide taxi services for the immigration officers/border service officers, as the military has no policing powers.

What I get from this is the Arafura has the potential to rub up against other countries' OPVs or the "fishing militia" of China. In which case, a bit more diameter in the gun category may be necessary should one of those interactions take a bad turn. The MCM weapon has further uses vs floating mines and other navigational hazards. Ok all makes sense to me now. Thanks!

 

[alexsa]

MFU? Stands for... Main fighting unit?

Freeing up a major warship away from constabulary duties is a very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect. It's more of increasing the availability of another asset.



Space, weight, and power reservation future-proof things. A weapon never does that. A weapon mount may do that if it's flexible enough (Mk 41 VLS is probably the best example). If you are arguing that a 40mm is able to do more tasks than a 25mm then I would agree that a 40mm was designed originally for AAW, so this is true. It can carry different shells. I assume the RAN purchased them for specific tasks within their own geopolitical and threat context.

I can fully understand the MCM ships having a 40mm. Something to shoot floating mines with that has both AP and HE rounds is a useful tool.

That's all I'm looking for here. The task a 40mm armed OPV is supposed to do that a 25mm armed OPV can't (all other things being equal), within the Australian context. If the weapon is a "nice to have" instead of a "need to have" I get that as well.

MFU is major fleet unit. It relates to the frigates, destroyers and large auxiliary units as indicated in the RAN's own web page

In 1987 the Australian Government announced the ‘Two-Ocean Basing Plan’ which established a permanent RAN major fleet unit and submarine presence in Western Australia. Since then, the RAN has maintained a two-ocean navy (Pacific and Indian) capable of responding quickly to national tasking from either seaboard. .

ttps://www.navy.gov.au/establishments/fleet-base-east

 

[aussienscale]

MFU? Stands for... Main fighting unit?

Freeing up a major warship away from constabulary duties is a very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect. It's more of increasing the availability of another asset.

MFU - Major Fleet Unit, as pointed out above.

"Very loose definition" really ? please do impart your knowledge on force multiplication, how is applies to the ADF and the RAN specifically and how that relates to the current v future force structure and the RAN CONOPS ? Then more than welcome to break that down into how it directly and indirectly relates to the OPV's and what they bring to the table for the RAN and ADF as a whole ?

You can loop in Customs and Border Force along with civil agencies as well if you like ?

Cheers

 

[Anthony_B_78]

MFU - Major Fleet Unit, as pointed out above.

"Very loose definition" really ? please do impart your knowledge on force multiplication, how is applies to the ADF and the RAN specifically and how that relates to the current v future force structure and the RAN CONOPS ? Then more than welcome to break that down into how it directly and indirectly relates to the OPV's and what they bring to the table for the RAN and ADF as a whole ?

You can loop in Customs and Border Force along with civil agencies as well if you like ?

Cheers

My reading was that the comment "very loose definition of a force-multiplying effect" isn't about how it applies to the ADF, etc, but simply an observation on the use of the term in this context. The evidence is the following comment - "It's more of increasing the availability of another asset." I haven't seen the term "force-multiplying effect" used in the context of one asset being used in the place of another. Examples I have seen are AAR aircraft extending the range of strike aircraft, guidance systems meaning smaller bombs can be carried and have the same effect, etc. Anyway, the point is you're likely not in disagreement; they just thought the term wasn't so much applicable, but another one was. You're still right that the larger OPVs mean the RAN is less likely to need frigates for constabulary duties.

 

[Git_Kraken]

MFU - Major Fleet Unit, as pointed out above.

"Very loose definition" really ? please do impart your knowledge on force multiplication, how is applies to the ADF and the RAN specifically and how that relates to the current v future force structure and the RAN CONOPS ? Then more than welcome to break that down into how it directly and indirectly relates to the OPV's and what they bring to the table for the RAN and ADF as a whole ?

You can loop in Customs and Border Force along with civil agencies as well if you like ?

Cheers

How about a professional response like the "Verified Defence Pro(fessional)" you are. The onus is on you to "impart your knowledge" to explain your point of view, given you obviously know more than me and have more experience in the Australian context. I explained my point of view with a logical response a completely valid point and a valid understanding of force multiplication (see @Anthony_B_78 response who got my point).

I'm happy to be wrong. Show me exactly how instead of getting irritated because someone questioned your point of view.

 

[Redlands18]

US Navy progresses light amphibious warship program | ADBR

The US Navy has awarded design contracts to five companies to develop their concepts for that service’s Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program. The small contracts were awarded to Fincantieri, Austal…

adbr.com.au

A project i suspect the ADF will keep a keen eye on with JP 2048 phase 5 due later in the decade. They have awarded design contracts to
Austal USA
Fincantieri
VT Halter Marine
Bollinger
TAI Engineers
Will be interest to see what they present.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

US Navy progresses light amphibious warship program | ADBR

The US Navy has awarded design contracts to five companies to develop their concepts for that service’s Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) program. The small contracts were awarded to Fincantieri, Austal…

adbr.com.au

A project i suspect the ADF will keep a keen eye on with JP 2048 phase 5 due later in the decade. They have awarded design contracts to
Austal USA
Fincantieri
VT Halter Marine
Bollinger
TAI Engineers
Will be interest to see what they present.

Well, we know the USMC has a serious woody for the STS' Stern Landing Vessel concept. I wonder who amongst the selected companies has teamed up with STS.
There is a bit of leeway in the program requirements.

Navy Light Amphibious Warship (LAW) Program: Background and Issues for Congress - Congressional Research Service (Updated Jun 7, 2021)

The Navy wants LAWs to be a relatively simple and relatively inexpensive ships with the following features, among others:

• a length of 200 feet to 400 feet;
• a maximum draft of 12 feet;
• a displacement of up to 4,000 tons;
• a ship’s crew of no more than 40 Navy sailors;
• an ability to embark at least 75 Marines;
• 4,000 to 8,000 square feet of cargo area for the Marines’ weapons, equipment, and supplies;
• a stern or bow landing ramp for moving the Marines and their weapons, equipment, and supplies the ship to shore (and vice versa) across a beach;
• a modest suite of C4I equipment;
• a 25mm or 30mm gun system and .50 caliber machine guns for self-defense;
• a transit speed of at least 14 knots, and preferably 15 knots;
• a minimum unrefueled transit range of 3,500 nautical miles;
• a “Tier 2+” plus level of survivability (i.e., ruggedness for withstanding battle damage)—a level, broadly comparable to that of a smaller U.S. Navy surface combatant (i.e., a corvette or frigate), that would permit the ship to absorb a hit from an enemy weapon and keep the crew safe until they and their equipment and supplies can be transferred to another LAW;
• an ability to operate within fleet groups or deploy independently; and
• a 20-year expected service life.

In addition to the above points, the Navy states that the LAW’s design can be based on a commercial-ship design.

 

[Takao]

I can understand that, but I would prefer they were not used for patrol craft given the combined war records.

It's almost like there should be a group of MFU's coming into service that need names. Maybe destroyers, maybe frigates. Like, a whole class. Imagine, 9 - 12 frigates that need names. And 9 - 12 names sitting there that have history, lineage, value...

*whispers* stupid Hunter names....

 

[alexsa]

It's almost like there should be a group of MFU's coming into service that need names. Maybe destroyers, maybe frigates. Like, a whole class. Imagine, 9 - 12 frigates that need names. And 9 - 12 names sitting there that have history, lineage, value...

*whispers* stupid Hunter names....

True .... but as the Hunters are in batches of three their may be an option to apply some logic to each batch. Not holding my breath though.

 

[hauritz]

I would be very surprised if one of the Hunters isn't named HMAS Melbourne. Possibly a Darwin as well.

 

[chis73]

Call me an ignorant Kiwi*, but I'd figured the Hunter class were named (or still could be?) for rivers. Hunter (NSW), Flinders (Queensland) & Tasman (Tasmania). The Wikipedia page says they are named for people though (early Governor & two explorers0. So maybe, a future HMAS Swan, Yarra, Parramatta & Murray (at least 3 of those have a pedigree as frigates as I recall).

*Go on, I know you want to!

 

[Redlands18]

Call me an ignorant Kiwi*, but I'd figured the Hunter class were named (or still could be?) for rivers. Hunter (NSW), Flinders (Queensland) & Tasman (Tasmania). The Wikipedia page says they are named for people though (early Governor & two explorers0. So maybe, a future HMAS Swan, Yarra, Parramatta & Murray (at least 3 of those have a pedigree as frigates as I recall).

*Go on, I know you want to! M

The 3 Hunters named so far are named after John Hunter, Mathew Flinders and Abel Tasman who also have Regions named after them. Hunter Valley, N/W of Sydney, Flinders Rangers North of Adelaide and of course Tasmania and the Tasman Sea. I am actually struggling to find 6 more names that fit, though Oxley is one possibility as its a historic RAN name(Oberon class SSK) and named for a early explorer John Oxley.

Parramatta of course is currently in use and will be into probably the mid to late 30s. It is now 3 years since the first 3 names were announced so different people will name the next batch, i know the GG signs off on the names but how the decision is reached, I don’t know.

With the US naming one of the LCS USS Canberra we may just get a HMAS Washington