As I understand it the plan is to build 8 new vessels to replace 12 old ones, of which two are currently laid up & two have been retired. The old ones are doing jobs that don't need ships meant to go up against enemy warships, but which need to be done. How would you like them to be done?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
meatshield
Active Member
Not sure if this has been mentioned before but i thought the group would find this interesting
Ash from Tonga volcano explosion linked to crippling power failure on HMAS Adelaide - ABC News
Ash from Tonga volcano explosion linked to crippling power failure on HMAS Adelaide - ABC News
Makes some sense when you think pumice floats. We took a cargo ship into Rabaul post that eruption and the pumice was still floating about (a bit surreal having a lot of rocks floating around the ship.
The coastline near Tokyo threatened by vast sheets of pumice stones - BBC-Edition
How it , or other contaminates, got into the cooling water intakes is the issue they will be looking at. It is possible the operating in shallow waters stirred up the ash that had settled on the seafloor. As a positive, at least they appear to be making progress on the cause.
The coastline near Tokyo threatened by vast sheets of pumice stones - BBC-Edition
How it , or other contaminates, got into the cooling water intakes is the issue they will be looking at. It is possible the operating in shallow waters stirred up the ash that had settled on the seafloor. As a positive, at least they appear to be making progress on the cause.
Actually that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. Fine particles of rock getting into places where they can do harm certainly could cause catastrophic failure of moving parts in engines etc. The air filters for the generator engine air intakes may not have been fine enough to trap the particles. They could have got in and ground away nicely. They could've blocked filters as well, especially if they worked their way into the lubrication system or the engine coolant system.
There will be plenty of ash still lying around and every time it is disturbed the finer particles become airborne and waft through the air until the air movement can no longer support them. So the greater the velocity of the air current and the lighter the ash particle the further it will travel. The fine particles could've been introduced into the ship's systems by the rotor wash of helos, sloughed off personnel walking through the ship, blown in by local winds etc. Ash from the eruption will still be suspended in the atmosphere and some is only falling to the surface now. This ash is the really fine stuff and has been making its way around the world in the upper atmospheric winds.
From what I have read, it appeared to be particulates and debris that was ingested into the seawater cooling system for the generators that did the damage, rather than air carried particulates and dust.
Of course these may also have been a contributing factor
MB
It's a very good question!
Would we today in selecting a patrol boat replacement have selected our current planned mix of OPV, MCM, Survey vessels.
I would doubt it.
We would go for a more robust mix of vessels.
Hamstrung by five decades of constabulary patrol boat culture we thought we were taking a big step by getting an OPV.
It was an impressive sized vessel from what had gone before, but when selected only five years ago we still held the eye glass to the blind eye.
We knew trouble was on the horizon in 2017 when the Lurssen OPV 80 was selected.
We new that we had a major challenge on the horizon with China way back in the 2009 ,which was articulated in the DWP.
We made the decision back then to acquire 12 submarines to counter this future threat.
We even had designs back in the 1990's for a gunned up middle tier vessel with a helicopter.
Remember the Sea Sprites. A helicopter without a ship. ANZAC's were plan B
So why did we get an under gunned OPV
Probably a few layers.
Lack of vision, budget battle ship , good construction project [ Which is fine ] and did I say lack of vision.
Today four Arafura Class vessels are in various stages of construction. One launched but still fitting out. None in commission!
As ddxx points out we will build some 20 ships which was what was initially suggested back in 2009.
So do we want to continue building 20 vessels of the same size and design?
NO !
We need to look at the opportunity of two classes of vessel.
One as is [Pragmatism ] and one larger to provide more robust options to government.
Time will be a challenge to design and build this larger vessel.
Lurrsen have larger designs which would accommodate our needs incorporating many of the Arafura's Classes systems.
11 majors and 20 constabulary OPV's are not the way forward.
If we can change tact with the submarine choice, we can change tact with an OPV.
As is they are a waste of money.
The world is changing too quickly and we need to be proactive in meeting future challenges.
Regards S
@Stampede
I have no problem with passion but the language spelt out is unnecessary and inconsistent with our rules. This is a warning and I have deleted the offending word. No repeats please.
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
Cost I would suggest. Original plans and requirements called for a significantly bigger (up to 2000 tons) ship and a more capable ‘Offshore Combat Vessel’ which like much of RAN capability plans, was continually watered down until we arrive at 12x Arafura Class in their present intended configuration.It's a very good question!
Would we today in selecting a patrol boat replacement have selected our current planned mix of OPV, MCM, Survey vessels.
I would doubt it.
We would go for a more robust mix of vessels.
Hamstrung by five decades of constabulary patrol boat culture we thought we were taking a big step by getting an OPV.
It was an impressive sized vessel from what had gone before, but when selected only five years ago we still held the eye glass to the blind eye.
We knew trouble was on the horizon in 2017 when the Lurssen OPV 80 was selected.
We new that we had a major challenge on the horizon with China way back in the 2009 ,which was articulated in the DWP.
We made the decision back then to acquire 12 submarines to counter this future threat.
We even had designs back in the 1990's for a gunned up middle tier vessel with a helicopter.
Remember the Sea Sprites. A helicopter without a ship. ANZAC's were plan B
So why did we get an under gunned OPV
Probably a few layers.
Lack of vision, budget battle ship , good construction project [ Which is fine ] and did I say lack of vision.
Today four Arafura Class vessels are in various stages of construction. One launched but still fitting out. None in commission!
As ddxx points out we will build some 20 ships which was what was initially suggested back in 2009.
So do we want to continue building 20 vessels of the same size and design?
NO !
We need to look at the opportunity of two classes of vessel.
One as is [Pragmatism ] and one larger to provide more robust options to government.
Time will be a challenge to design and build this larger vessel.
Lurrsen have larger designs which would accommodate our needs incorporating many of the Arafura's Classes systems.
11 majors and 20 constabulary OPV's are not the way forward.
If we can change tact with the submarine choice, we can change tact with an OPV.
As is they are a waste of money.
The world is changing too quickly and we need to be proactive in meeting future challenges.
Regards S
Arafura will likely do their intended patrol job well, whether that is enough capability for this day and age, remains to be seen.
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue with Lürssen's larger variants (e.g. OPV 90) is that they would require roughly the same core crew as modern GP Frigates such as the AH140, but with far less capability, mission flexibility, and through-life space and weight margins for growth.
MCM and survey are becoming the realm of autonomous systems. Both the RN and USN are moving away from dedicated MCM vessels, but rather utilising modular mission packages on multirole frigates (RN) and the LCS (USN).
This aids in bolstering combat fleet size and flexibility along with better utilisation of finite crew resources and industrial capacity.
It wouldn't surprise me if Australia did eventually embark on a light patrol frigate program. I think that is still some time off however.
The navy will eventually look at replacing the Arafura. Given that each generation of patrol vessel seems to be significantly more capable than its predecessor and the increasing threat posed by the Chinese navy I could see a new generation of light frigates in the 2040s. There is the possibility of that that program being accelerated depending on Australia's emerging threat environment.
I don't see Australia building interim replacements for the ANZACs however. If the delays with the Hunters did ever become insurmountable (which I don't see happening) I think a more likely route would be to revert back to building extra Hobarts.
Also Lürssen isn't a lock in for future generations of patrol vessels. They will have to compete on the open market like everybody else.
The navy will eventually look at replacing the Arafura. Given that each generation of patrol vessel seems to be significantly more capable than its predecessor and the increasing threat posed by the Chinese navy I could see a new generation of light frigates in the 2040s. There is the possibility of that that program being accelerated depending on Australia's emerging threat environment.
I don't see Australia building interim replacements for the ANZACs however. If the delays with the Hunters did ever become insurmountable (which I don't see happening) I think a more likely route would be to revert back to building extra Hobarts.
Also Lürssen isn't a lock in for future generations of patrol vessels. They will have to compete on the open market like everybody else.
Warning acknowledged.It's a very good question!
Would we today in selecting a patrol boat replacement have selected our current planned mix of OPV, MCM, Survey vessels.
I would doubt it.
We would go for a more robust mix of vessels.
Hamstrung by five decades of constabulary patrol boat culture we thought we were taking a big step by getting an OPV.
It was an impressive sized vessel from what had gone before, but when selected only five years ago we still held the eye glass to the blind eye.
We knew trouble was on the horizon in 2017 when the Lurssen OPV 80 was selected.
We new that we had a major challenge on the horizon with China way back in the 2009 ,which was articulated in the DWP.
We made the decision back then to acquire 12 submarines to counter this future threat.
We even had designs back in the 1990's for a gunned up middle tier vessel with a helicopter.
Remember the Sea Sprites. A helicopter without a ship. ANZAC's were plan B
So why did we get an under gunned OPV
Probably a few layers.
Lack of vision, budget battle ship , good construction project [ Which is fine ] and did I say lack of vision.
Today four Arafura Class vessels are in various stages of construction. One launched but still fitting out. None in commission!
As ddxx points out we will build some 20 ships which was what was initially suggested back in 2009.
So do we want to continue building 20 vessels of the same size and design?
NO !
We need to look at the opportunity of two classes of vessel.
One as is [Pragmatism ] and one larger to provide more robust options to government.
Time will be a challenge to design and build this larger vessel.
Lurrsen have larger designs which would accommodate our needs incorporating many of the Arafura's Classes systems.
11 majors and 20 constabulary OPV's are not the way forward.
If we can change tact with the submarine choice, we can change tact with an OPV.
As is they are a waste of money.
The world is changing too quickly and we need to be proactive in meeting future challenges.
Regards S
@Stampede
I have no problem with passion but the language spelt out is unnecessary and inconsistent with our rules. This is a warning and I have deleted the offending word. No repeats please.
Alexsa
Passion appreciated.
Profanity button turned to off.
Regards S
Noted with thanks
Alexsa
Last edited by a moderator:
If we wanted to go a light frigate my 2 cents would be on the Mogami class. Almost half the crew and double the weapons/tonnage of the Anzac class. If it works well and should know within a couple years would be a seriously worthwhile design that could provide good bang for buck. Hell might be a worthwhile class for RNZN to consider with crewing they could get 4 or so to replace their Anzacs. Fitted with CEAFAR, which ever ASM we choose and even CEC they would be a good asset even just in defensive role.
Do recall not so long ago one of the Defpros mentioned thatthe proposed dividend fleet for the RAN around end of Cold War was proposed as being around 3 DDG's, 6 FFG's and 8 FFH's (Which in hindsight would have been 3 x Perths, 6 x Adelaide's and 8 x Anzacs). This from my researtch came about in the 1987 DWP https://defence.gov.au/publications/wpaper1987.pdf. In it mentions the RAN strength at 15,732 similar to what we have today and even moretoday when you factor in reservists, Theoretically this should allow for more hulls they I dont know exactly the changes made in the back end so could we achieve such a fleet today with current personnel? Or would it be less? Could it be more? Biggest stuff up IMO was lumping in the replacement for 9 ships and getting just 3 to fill their roles. Spread assets to far, over worked them and crews and left industry with not enough work to achieve optimal efficiency
As for the imagined FFH taking some of the Arufara slots well I dont agree with that. We need patrol boats to do just that patrol and the extra potentual vessels that may or may not be based on the class are to fill other roles outside of patrol so if you ignore those we are just getting 12 patrol boats, Leave those alone or we could effectively cut our actual patrol boat fleet down to 4 or so... They aren't sexy but they are needed so hands off.
Do recall not so long ago one of the Defpros mentioned thatthe proposed dividend fleet for the RAN around end of Cold War was proposed as being around 3 DDG's, 6 FFG's and 8 FFH's (Which in hindsight would have been 3 x Perths, 6 x Adelaide's and 8 x Anzacs). This from my researtch came about in the 1987 DWP https://defence.gov.au/publications/wpaper1987.pdf. In it mentions the RAN strength at 15,732 similar to what we have today and even moretoday when you factor in reservists, Theoretically this should allow for more hulls they I dont know exactly the changes made in the back end so could we achieve such a fleet today with current personnel? Or would it be less? Could it be more? Biggest stuff up IMO was lumping in the replacement for 9 ships and getting just 3 to fill their roles. Spread assets to far, over worked them and crews and left industry with not enough work to achieve optimal efficiency
As for the imagined FFH taking some of the Arufara slots well I dont agree with that. We need patrol boats to do just that patrol and the extra potentual vessels that may or may not be based on the class are to fill other roles outside of patrol so if you ignore those we are just getting 12 patrol boats, Leave those alone or we could effectively cut our actual patrol boat fleet down to 4 or so... They aren't sexy but they are needed so hands off.
This is a BIG IF the Mogami Class FFG were to be built for the RAN, it may cost around an estimated AU$600 million per ship sail away if the estimated JMSDF costs are realistic and the RAN stick to like for like specs. WRT the RNZN, hell we could acquire six at that price with the funding required to replace the ANZACs. Not that that would ever happen.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
News just in Chinese warships (Type 052D destroyer.) passing through the Arafura Sea and Torres Straight towards Coral Sea shone lasers at an RAAF Poseidon. The photo shows the Chinese DDG Heifei (174) part of the South Sea Fleet.
www.abc.net.au
Iin light of the location, I hope we are taking a close look at basing options for SSNs on the east coast as well as the west coast. To me this incident highlights that we need more at sea RAN ships and subs promptly.
Prime Minister accuses Chinese military of 'reckless' intimidation after laser shone at RAAF aircraft
Defence says on Thursday, an RAAF P-8A Poseidon with up to 109 personnel on board detected a laser illuminating the aircraft while in flight.
www.abc.net.au
Iin light of the location, I hope we are taking a close look at basing options for SSNs on the east coast as well as the west coast. To me this incident highlights that we need more at sea RAN ships and subs promptly.
Last edited:
Lasers are an issue.News just in Chinese warships (Type 052D destroyer.) passing through the Arafura Sea and Torres Straight towards Coral Sea shone lasers at an RAAF Poseidon. The photo shows the Chinese DDG Heifei (174) part of the South Sea Fleet.
Prime Minister accuses Chinese military of 'reckless' intimidation after laser shone at RAAF aircraft
Defence says on Thursday, an RAAF P-8A Poseidon with up to 109 personnel on board detected a laser illuminating the aircraft while in flight.
Iin light of the location, I hope we are taking a close look at basing options for SSNs on the east coast as well as the west coast. To me this incident highlights that we need more at sea RAN ships and subs promptly.
If true that was no accident.
Question is, was it the ships captains decision or a directive from above?
Whatever the answer, PLAN fleet numbers will increasingly be more frequent and active in this part of the world.
Freedom of the sea does permit them to sail through the Torres Straight.
Question is, what size will be the next visiting PLAN flotilla?
Cheers S
Is it just me, but do the OPV’s now seem to be a li’l bit less intimidating with their constabulary weapons and systems fit out?
A few coffee stained shirts at HQJOC this week.
Will SOPs now require our LHDs to deploy with an escort?
Not so quiet on the Southern Front | Lowy Institute
Australia faces stiff geopolitical competition in Antarctica, and it’s not just China and Russia with eyes on the prize.
www.lowyinstitute.org
An interesting update on the Antarctic - Just a thought, would it make some sense for Australia and NZ to partner on a Southern OPV class?
The RAN will need to learn how to sail down there first to help inform them what type of ship they would require. The RNZN found out the hard way that the ANZAC frigates had trouble handling the Southern Ocean and suffered damage doing so from the wave action. Significant wave height down there is greater than thought and allowed for in the design parameters. It is greater than what is used in the current Polar Class specifications which are based on the North Atlantic high latitude wave climate. 10m seas are common, 20m seas frequent and 25 - 30m seas regular occurrences. So she's more than your average just a little bit of roughers.Not so quiet on the Southern Front | Lowy Institute
Australia faces stiff geopolitical competition in Antarctica, and it’s not just China and Russia with eyes on the prize.
An interesting update on the Antarctic - Just a thought, would it make some sense for Australia and NZ to partner on a Southern OPV class?
WRT rest of the article, the current Antarctic Treaty expires in 26 years (2048) there will be a rush by nations to establish "facts on the ground" prior to the negotiations for a new treaty begin. Some nations will be more avaricious than others and I would not be surprised if military forces would be inserted to back up any claims, even though that is forbidden under the current Treaty. Certain nations have made a habit of paying lip service to Treaties. I would suspect that the period from 2030 - 35 will see the beginning of this.
How Australia reacts to this is for it to decide, but I do note that it has at least one CP station within it's claimed Antarctic territory. If you pursue that claim and enforce it then you will have to evict the PRC from your territory. I suspect that they will not have a sense of humour about that. NZ will undoubtedly have similar issues because we do have a large claim down there as well.