Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Newman]

So SEA 1905 Phase 1 seems to moving forward.
Further details will be very interesting.
Particularly the time table to build these upto 8 vessels.
Are they to commence construction after the Arafura build in the late 2020's???
If so that would seem to me a bit late.
If not, is their capacity to keep the Arafura build time table and start construction of Phase 1905 vessels for their delivery to the RAN this decade.
The premise that we need to double our MCM force seems to imply a need!!!.
Yes I appreciate these replacements will also be for our survey fleet but I assume they will be multipurpose MCM / Survey ships hence "the double in size "tag.

Regards S

Have a re-read of the Def Mins press release. The project has been brought forward to the mid 2020s.

The construction of the Arafura class OPVs runs through to about 2030, these new ships will therefore be built concurrently for a number of years.

If the current consortium building the Arafura class also wins this project, there is more than enough room in the very large Civmec build/assembly hall.

Having enough skilled manpower will probably be the biggest hurdle with the large number of projects that will be built at Henderson in the coming years.

 

[oldsig127]

So SEA 1905 Phase 1 seems to moving forward.
Further details will be very interesting.
Particularly the time table to build these upto 8 vessels.
Are they to commence construction after the Arafura build in the late 2020's???
If so that would seem to me a bit late.
If not, is their capacity to keep the Arafura build time table and start construction of Phase 1905 vessels for their delivery to the RAN this decade.
The premise that we need to double our MCM force seems to imply a need!!!.
Yes I appreciate these replacements will also be for our survey fleet but I assume they will be multipurpose MCM / Survey ships hence "the double in size "tag.

Regards S

“Following the election commitment made by the Federal Government in 2019, we are bringing forward the replacement of the Huon-class vessel from the 2030’s to the mid 2020’s. We are also committed to constructing a new hydrographic capability,” Minister Reynolds said.

Seems clear enough to me. Which seems to imply that they have the capacity, or there is an intention to pay for it to be established

edit: Oops. I see that @John Newman has beaten me to it. My apologies

oldsig

 

[spoz]

"With ranges in excess of 370 kilometres for anti-ship and surface-to-air missiles, and 1,500 kilometres for maritime land strike missiles, these new weapons will enhance the protection of our maritime resources and borders, and hold adversaries at risk at much greater distances."

I thought Australia was also an MCTR-member, or are the MCTR-rules only for land based missile systems?

Quote taken from Australia to Procure Long Range Anti-Ship and Land Attack Cruise Missiles - Naval News

Yes it is, but MTCR controlled weapons are those with payloads over 500 kg ( and ranges in excess of 300 km) so stay under 500 kg and you are OK. Tomahawk is 450 kg and so is LRASM - therefore if they are the missiles being considered you are OK.

 

[Stampede]

The Arafura are constabulary units and would not be deployed where an air threat exists without further modification.
They are not a GP corvette or a mini escort and arming them as such would be a waste of scarce resources.
Should the proverbial hit the fan then added protection in some form would be relatively easy.

Correct with all of the above.
Trust the PLAN acknowledge the script and allow us time to add protection in case of the proverbial.
Appreciate the Arafura upgrade to a battleship debate is a frustration to many on DT.
At the same time its equally a frustration to myself and others who see a rapidly changing world and a mindset that the new OPV's are still a reincarnation of constabulary duties of days gone bye in a much larger platform.
Yep they can do more than the old generations of patrol boats as is.
But maybe we should be looking at their full potential when they hit the water rather than an add on down the tract.

Its an issue of time and suggest need.


Regards S

 

[John Newman]

Correct with all of the above.
Trust the PLAN acknowledge the script and allow us time to add protection in case of the proverbial.
Appreciate the Arafura upgrade to a battleship debate is a frustration to many on DT.
At the same time its equally a frustration to myself and others who see a rapidly changing world and a mindset that the new OPV's are still a reincarnation of constabulary duties of days gone bye in a much larger platform.
Yep they can do more than the old generations of patrol boats as is.
But maybe we should be looking at their full potential when they hit the water rather than an add on down the tract.

Its an issue of time and suggest need.


Regards S

Mate, you’ve got me a bit confused.

One minute you appear to agree with ASSAIL that the Arafura OPVs are indeed constabulary ships, then the next minute you appear to want them to be up gunned and turned into OCVs. Which is it?

Just because they are significantly larger than the PBs they will replace, doesn’t mean the role they are intended for changes or disappears, it actually make them more capable for that specific role.

If there was a requirement for an up gunned OCV or Corvette, well that’s a totally separate discussion.

Anyway, just my opinion.

 

[Todjaeger]

Correct with all of the above.
Trust the PLAN acknowledge the script and allow us time to add protection in case of the proverbial.
Appreciate the Arafura upgrade to a battleship debate is a frustration to many on DT.
At the same time its equally a frustration to myself and others who see a rapidly changing world and a mindset that the new OPV's are still a reincarnation of constabulary duties of days gone bye in a much larger platform.
Yep they can do more than the old generations of patrol boats as is.
But maybe we should be looking at their full potential when they hit the water rather than an add on down the tract.

Its an issue of time and suggest need.


Regards S

And the frustration continues it seems. Unless the Arafura-class OPV's are specifically designed and built with key features in mind (as in FFBNW), they will remain OPV's regardless of how many/large guns are fitted, torpedoes & launchers added, or missiles and launchers or VLS. Unless damage control and survivability features commonly found in warship designed are included, then even an up-gunned Arafura-class is going to be vulnerable compared to a similarly sized & armed corvette. I expect the outcome would be a bit better than back in WWII when the UK armed fishing trawlers, but would still fall short of delivering frigate or even possibly corvette-level capabilities.

From my POV, a very modest amount of increasing the armament and self-protection levels of the Arafura-class might (emphasis MIGHT) make some sense, if it enabled an OPV to conduct anti-piracy deployments or similar types/scopes of operations, in lieu of a major RAN combatant like one of the frigates or destroyers. This could likely be accomplished by the addition of one or two 'extra' small calibre, rapid fire guns, so that there are fire arcs which cover all approaches to the vessel. Anything more than this would likely mean that the vessel is expected to operate in an environment that it really is not suited for, and even trying to pack more weapons aboard is not going to make it suitable.

I would firstly suggest that people consider the current and planned RAN force structure, and really consider what they are thinking about when they suggest a potential RAN 'need', and then consider what would really be involved in meeting or covering that hypothetical 'need'.

For me, one area where a potential 'need' could emerge would be a need for additional ASW pickets. While I do not know that the Arafura-class OPV, as currently designed, would be inappropriate for modification to perform ASW picket duties, I would not be surprised if the design was inappropriate for such duties even after modification. AFAIK for such duties, a surface vessel should have a fairly quiet hull & machinery and often design and construction work is necessary to meet such requirements. Again, AFAIK no special efforts have been made to make the OPV's hulls or machinery 'quiet'. Next, ASW picket ships would of course need sonar, hull-mounted at least and likely towed arrays as well. While this could potentially be fitted to the OPV, if the hull quieting was not taken care of, then the sonars fitted could be getting false positive contacts from the ship itself. It would be a potential major advantage in persecuting a possible contact if a ASW picket ship could embark, support and sustain a naval helicopter beyond just lily-padding and/or refueling. Re-arming and replenishing the stores of a naval helicopter could enable more eyes and ears be available to try and locate a hostile sub. However, even with some modifications, the OPV design is not suitable or able to fulfill this role.

 

[alexsa]

There was also another naval announcement today too:

Henderson Shipyard becomes sovereign capability powerhouse | Defence Ministers

Australian industry is continuing to reap the benefits of the Morrison Government’s unprecedented investment in new infrastructure and shipbuilding activities which is creating thousands of Australian jobs.Through the Morrison Government’s up to $183 billion Naval Shipbuilding Plan, Henderson...

www.minister.defence.gov.au

This paragraph stands out:

“Under project SEA 1905 Phase 1, Defence has made a down-select decision to explore a variant of the offshore patrol vessels for the new Mine Countermeasures and Survey Vessels under project SEA 1905 Phase 1. This will support the construction of new vessels which will be built at the Henderson precinct, supporting local jobs in Western Australia.”

It was mentioned in the mid year 2020 update that Defence was looking at the potential of using the OPV hull as a replacement for the Mine Warfare and Hydro ships (up to 8 ships), it would appear that is going to happen.


Another couple of interesting paragraphs too:

“With plans highlighted in the 2020 Force Structure Plan to build two multi-role sealift and replenishment ships, a Pacific Support Vessel, and an ice-rated replacement for Ocean Protector in Australia, additional major docking facilities will be required in the near future to supplement the capability of the Captain Cook Graving Dock in Sydney.

“The construction of such a facility would be an enormous boost to our sovereign shipbuilding and sustainment industry, and the West Australian Government’s forward leaning approach and commitment to this work is crucial to Defence.“

Interesting to note the planned replacement for Ocean Protector will be ice rated, the replacement is possibly planned to spend a bit of time operating in the Southern Ocean.

Hopefully the updated 2020 Naval Shipbuilding Plan is released soon.

Cheers,

The current boarder protection Ocean Shield and ADV Ocean Protector are both ice rated. It is a very broad term and these vessel are 1D's under the old system from memory. That would make them ICE-C under the Polar Code (see link below). These are not icebreakers but can work in light ice and the standard is suitable for patrolling in Polar waters in suitable weather conditions.

We cannot assume that the replacement for the Protector will be built to a higher ice rating that this,

DNV_GL_Polar_Ship_Categories (1).pdf

 

[John Newman]

The current boarder protection Ocean Shield and ADV Ocean Protector are both ice rated. It is a very broad term and these vessel are 1D's under the old system from memory. That would make them ICE-C under the Polar Code (see link below). These are not icebreakers but can work in light ice and the standard is suitable for patrolling in Polar waters in suitable weather conditions.

We cannot assume that the replacement for the Protector will be built to a higher ice rating that this,

DNV_GL_Polar_Ship_Categories (1).pdf

Mate, thanks for the ice rating info, the link doesn’t appear to be working though.

I wasn’t aware that Ocean Protector was an ice rated ship.

I just thought it was interesting that the announcement from the Def Min specifically mentioned an ice rated replacement.

 

[Depot Dog]

IMO Tomahawk is less important for Australia, its long reach allows it to attack deep land locked targets, from extreme range. However, it is quite an old cruise missile, and not particularly stealthy, smart or dynamic. It would be able to be intercepted by quite old weapons systems and platforms, quite reliably. It can certainly be useful against countries lower on the technology tree, or enmass, or first strike, but really none of these are likely for Australia. Australia operates in a region of archipelagos.

Australia to Acquire Hypersonic Weapons Capability in Collaboration with US

The newly announced SCIFiRE project builds on 15 years of joint Australia-U.S. fundamental research on hypersonics.

thediplomat.com

.

The new proposed naval missiles will protect us from future warfare threats. The Tomahawk was a star in the gulf war but is aging. For many years Australia has been researching Hypersonic technology. We recently committed to working with yanks to develop Hypersonic air launched missiles. Most missiles can be designed to work on multiple platforms. I believe a locally produced Hypersonic cruise naval missiles should be considered a possibility.

DD

 

[Bob53]

A

Correct with all of the above.
Trust the PLAN acknowledge the script and allow us time to add protection in case of the proverbial.
Appreciate the Arafura upgrade to a battleship debate is a frustration to many on DT.
At the same time its equally a frustration to myself and others who see a rapidly changing world and a mindset that the new OPV's are still a reincarnation of constabulary duties of days gone bye in a much larger platform.
Yep they can do more than the old generations of patrol boats as is.
But maybe we should be looking at their full potential when they hit the water rather than an add on down the tract.

Its an issue of time and suggest need.


Regards S

Mate I might of re kicked an older can here but only suggesting better self protection on all RAN ships and nothing more. Yes they are not supposed to go in harms away and no one is. supposed to shoot at them and we are are not supposed to have any enemies. But suppose things turn out different. It’s just a risk reward ROI I’m thinking. So sure upgrade them when needed but what we have seen is is any project takes 2-3 years to deliver. I wouldn’t want my kids serving on an unprotected target.

 

[hairyman]

This announcement about a Billion dollars being spent on Naval missiles etc, is'nt it just a re-hash of previous announcements? Can anyone point out what is new news?

 

[ngatimozart]

The Arafura class are OPVs. Not DDGs / FFGs or CGNs so the posts about upgunning / arming them are becoming quite tedious yet again and when we have DEFPROs whinging in our ears about it, the Moderators tend to get cranky. So leave the topic alone and stop worrying like a dog worries a bone. If the COA wanted vessels with teeth it would have built corvettes for the job. It hasn't built corvettes, so the topic is off limits.

 

[Boagrius]

This announcement about a Billion dollars being spent on Naval missiles etc, is'nt it just a re-hash of previous announcements? Can anyone point out what is new news?

AFAIK this is the first time a specific commitment has been made to SM2 Blk IIIC and SM6. It's also the first mention I've seen about procurement of a 1500km ranged weapon (Tomahawk). As I mentioned earlier, those Mk41 VLS cells are going to be in demand...(!)

 

[Stampede]

Mate, you’ve got me a bit confused.

One minute you appear to agree with ASSAIL that the Arafura OPVs are indeed constabulary ships, then the next minute you appear to want them to be up gunned and turned into OCVs. Which is it?

Just because they are significantly larger than the PBs they will replace, doesn’t mean the role they are intended for changes or disappears, it actually make them more capable for that specific role.

If there was a requirement for an up gunned OCV or Corvette, well that’s a totally separate discussion.

Anyway, just my opinion.

Some clarity

There is the argument that the increased capabilities of the Arafura class over the previous generations of patrol boats will free up the majors to do what they do best.
No doubt they will be a vast improvement on the "Patrol Boat era vessels.
In more stable times I would support such an approach, but not today.
Thing are moving at such a pace that the perceived improvement and doctrine of the Patrol Boat generations I would contend as been dated before the first of the Arafura's hit the water.
Others may disagree.
So what are the options.
Well the Arafura's design is the constant and is in planned construct so it's potential is the variable.
A variable that should be explored today and not as a maybe down the track.

Now I fully get what the Arafura Class CANNOT DO.

But still many navy's have similar sized vessels of similar size and weight to the Arafura Class with much more robust weaponry and sensors.
These also have their limitation but the important thing is what options they give to their respective fleets which in contrast to our firepower is only a 40mm cannon and a flight deck of limited weight baring capacity. ( Allegedly this will be fixed ).

Not very 2020

So the question is what maritime surface options do we have in-between our Patrol ( Constabulary ) force and a gunned up Destroyer?
It's bugger all, so we will end up seconding destroyers to do what they shouldn't be doing. This is a waste of limited resources.
The more of the middle ground contingency's that the Arafura Class can deal with, then the greater number of frigates / Destroyers we will have to deal with what they do best.
We only have eleven of these today and I can only speculate that number will grow to twelve late in the Hunter Class build schedule some time in the 2030/40s.

In a world where hostile constabulary / Coast Guard forces test a nations will short of major conflict, we need to consider how we respond to such an approach.

An up gunned Arafura will at times be a better response than sending in a destroyer.

Something to consider.


Regards S

@Stampede Did you not read my post in red above? Are you willing to test the Moderators patience? I hope not. No repeats please.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Todjaeger]

Some clarity

There is the argument that the increased capabilities of the Arafura class over the previous generations of patrol boats will free up the majors to do what they do best.
No doubt they will be a vast improvement on the "Patrol Boat era vessels.
In more stable times I would support such an approach, but not today.
Thing are moving at such a pace that the perceived improvement and doctrine of the Patrol Boat generations I would contend as been dated before the first of the Arafura's hit the water.
Others may disagree.
So what are the options.
Well the Arafura's design is the constant and is in planned construct so it's potential is the variable.
A variable that should be explored today and not as a maybe down the track.

Now I fully get what the Arafura Class CANNOT DO.

But still many navy's have similar sized vessels of similar size and weight to the Arafura Class with much more robust weaponry and sensors.
These also have their limitation but the important thing is what options they give to their respective fleets which in contrast to our firepower is only a 40mm cannon and a flight deck of limited weight baring capacity. ( Allegedly this will be fixed ).

Not very 2020

So the question is what maritime surface options do we have in-between our Patrol ( Constabulary ) force and a gunned up Destroyer?
It's bugger all, so we will end up seconding destroyers to do what they shouldn't be doing. This is a waste of limited resources.
The more of the middle ground contingency's that the Arafura Class can deal with, then the greater number of frigates / Destroyers we will have to deal with what they do best.
We only have eleven of these today and I can only speculate that number will grow to twelve late in the Hunter Class build schedule some time in the 2030/40s.

In a world where hostile constabulary / Coast Guard forces test a nations will short of major conflict, we need to consider how we respond to such an approach.

An up gunned Arafura will at times be a better response than sending in a destroyer.

Something to consider.


Regards S

Vessels of similar size and displacement to the Arafura-class OPV's would usually be classified as corvettes if kitted out with more a robust weapons and sensor fitout. Such vessels tend to have both shorter 'legs' than an OPV, as well as cost significantly more for a vessel of roughly the same size. To give an idea of such differences, compare Germany's K130 or Braunschweig-class corvette, with the Arafura-class OPV. The Australian OPV costs ~half what an example of the German corvette does from the more recent order, while the OPV is designed for a 21 day endurance while the German corvette only has an endurance of seven days without a tender. Side note, the corvette crew is ~50% greater than the OPV.

In fact, if one looks at the developmental history of OPV's, one can rather quickly start to realize that OPV's were deliberately developed to meet a need for larger, ocean-going patrol assets that had both the range and seakeeping to handle open water that small patrol boats just were not suitable for. At the time, some of this patrol work was being handled by warships, yet neither the weapons or sensor fitout was really required, or the larger crew of a warship. Hence the development of OPV's which could meet the needed range, endurance and seakeeping requirements, yet was not fitted with the combat & electronics/data systems which were not really needed and tended to significantly increase the cost of a vessel as well as the crew requirements.

Right now, it really does look as though people keep wanting to turn the OPV's back into some sort of corvette or patrol frigate when it was not designed to be either. If it is really felt that the RAN needs more actual warships instead of constabulary vessels it would be far better IMO to actually go with selecting and producing a class of vessel which meets such requirements. I do admit however, that I am dubious about whether or not there really is any such need. From my POV, if the security situation is such that a vessel with greater combat capabilities than is currently planned for the Arafura-class is needed, then one of the major warships like a frigate or destroyer is really what is required. There just are not very many (quite few IMO) credible scenarios where more than a 40 mm gun is needed, but the comprehensive weapons fitout covering ASW, ASuW, and air defence is not needed.

 

[alexsa]

Mate, thanks for the ice rating info, the link doesn’t appear to be working though.

I wasn’t aware that Ocean Protector was an ice rated ship.

I just thought it was interesting that the announcement from the Def Min specifically mentioned an ice rated replacement.

Not sure what happened there. Try this page and scroll to the bottom. The link to the table is there. It opens a PDF

IMO Polar Code - DNV GL

 

[Reptilia]

Anyone have much info on the future japanese sub that is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s?
Could be an even better ‘plan b’ than the a26ER.

 

[Redlands18]

[

Anyone have much info on the future japanese sub that is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s?
Could be an even better ‘plan b’ than the a26ER.

There have been a number of Posts on here concerning the suitability of Japanese Subs in the last week, it may be an idea to read through them

We are using the French boats because of their hull and other fittings and systems. Changing the diameter and you are starting from scratch essentially. Significantly changing the length would also require significant reengineering and study into the hydrodynamics. We have been here before.

IMO The 1m shorter at the announcement was more about implying they wouldn't be too big. Making a submarine 1m shorter really makes no sense, for the reengineering you would need to do, just fill it with ballast and enjoy the extra metre and growth potential. Maybe you wouldn't need crew to sleep on top of the torpedo's, or piss in the sink or bottle cause there are no toilet facilities in the rear of the boat, or pack stores into sleeping quarters and have the crew sleep on top of them. You could put in a proper exercise bike or rowing machine.. As noted there are valid questions about the amount of war loads that are carried as is.

Quoted displacement varied quite a lot during the bidding process, yet the dimensions of the submarine never changed. IMO we would be mad to "try and make it smaller" in the interests of saving money. In the end, no one really cared to much about the displacement.

Its clear that these are going to be some 55% larger in volume than the Collins class. We need that volume. The Japanese subs are very tight with volume. Arguably, if the standard Japanese subs were selected, we would be going back from where we are with Collins unless the Japanese design was significantly modified.



Each still has its strengths and weaknesses. The Phalanx on the LHD are replacing 25mm typhoons. I think in the role they are envisioned and the threats they are designed to handle, they are a great choice. If you want to have something further reaching for air threats, I would be looking beyond the 40mm at something missile based.

@StingrayOZ put up an excellent post a few days back concerning the RAN Subs including details about Japanese Subs in the Australian context.

 

[John Newman]

Anyone have much info on the future japanese sub that is supposed to enter service in the early 2030s?
Could be an even better ‘plan b’ than the a26ER.

Plan B?

The answer to that is, Plan B is to ensure Plan A works, simple as that.

Despite the garbage that gets written in the media (certain sections of the media), from time to time, the Government will no be ditching Plan A, not going to happen.

Discussing alternate options in the RAN thread for the RAN is a waste of time and isn’t going to go anywhere.

That’s not to say you can’t discuss the next class of Japanese submarines in the Japanese context, but thats to be done in the Japanese MSDF thread.

Cheers,

 

[Reptilia]

Why wouldn’t they ditch plan A? It is possible The way things are going. The cost keeps going up, the time frame keeps getting pushed back, etc etc
350 mill to ditch the contract now and potentially purchase 12 a26ER much cheaper with all the trimmings the attack class has without the pump jet and a 1/3 less range(which is what we have now and That’s enough for what we need). and with a shortened build time And less crew required
hopefully the extra $ goes into establishing 3 sub full cycle docking facilities, east, south and west so we can get more subs in the future. A future that will unlikely have manned subs after 2060.
+ 3 Virginia class down the track either owned or loaned based in the north and maintained by the U.S if policies change.

@Reptilla

Redlands18 has provided some very good advice. There is a lot to learn by reading the history, rehashing the same subject matter because you have not done so is frowned upon.

Alexsa