Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ADMk2]

Apologies if this should go on the other general thread. I thought this article might be of interest to people on this forum because it is a report of a naval attack on a Russian stealth corvette by a Ukrainian missile in the Black Sea. No idea how many missiles were fired or even what kind. at some point analysis of this conflict should be applied to future Australian naval purchases too. Stories like this suggest small naval combatants with limited AA are very vulnerable even just getting near a hostile shore, never mind enemy air strike units or large ships.

Ukrainian Navy in deadly attack on Russian stealth warship

A Russian Navy large patrol corvette has been targeted in a missile attack from territory controlled by Ukrainian Armed Forces, according to Taras Chmut, head of the Ukrainian Military Center think-tank. “According to preliminary information from the Command of the Ukrainian Navy, a missile...

defence-blog.com

Allegedly a GRAD multiple launch rocket system was employee in this attack, firing un-guided rockets.

The Russian vessel was sitting at most 1-2k offshore and apparently has not even had it’s major combat systems fitted.

I’d be careful drawing too many conclusions from this engagement accordingly, even if what is being reported is ‘true’. These are most unusual circumstances… Why an effectively unarmed Russian ship has been sailing for days in direct LOS from Ukrainian shorelines is rather a mystery to me…

But yes, I am not a fan and never will be of the concept of a “warship” being fitted with little to no self-defence capability, and especially then deployed to an active combat zone…

I cannot see one legitimate reason why ANY RAN “warship” is not fitted with an overlapping system of defensive fires capability against air and surface threats (reasonable threats that is…) as well as decoys against air and sub-surface threats, EWSP and a suitable sensor and combat system to stitch this all together.

A bare minimum for ANY RAN ship being sent to a combat zone should be an anti-air / surface gun system, an air defence missile / CIWS, decoys and EWSP.

Anything less in this day and age is incredibly reckless decision-making, IMHO…

 

[MickB]

Just listened to Hypohystericalhistory's take on up gunning the Arafura class.
As usual well reasoned and provides good background on why the ship was chosen in the first place.

For one who grew up in a non computer age, unsure how to post a link.

 

[Bob53]

Here is the link

 

[StingrayOZ]

Just listened to Hypohystericalhistory's take on up gunning the Arafura class.
As usual well reasoned and provides good background on why the ship was chosen in the first place.

Well, he is super happy about how to pronounce Thales, as a frenchman.

Not sure how he wants to attached 4 x LRASM onto an OPV, a 10 ton installation. Plus he is getting the ADF to develop a box launcher for this configuration (and a system for launching it from 9LV on the OPV inc integration). Lets just ignore NSM, which is far lighter, far smaller, already available in a light weight box launcher, or RBS15 with 9LV. Not to mention if the Arafura are in range to use weapons, so are the Arafuras in range of the enemies weapons. In that exchange I would expect the Arafura's to come off 2nd best with a missile exchange with a Chinese destroyer taskforce.

He does see the value in it as a sensor platform. Sea lancer is a viable system to look at. IMO. He misses a lot of the value of it operating in conjunction with a specialist ASW combatant (Hobart/Hunter) and its air. Its not just a value from a towed array. Also integration is magical. My Navman in my car integrates with my tinnys garmin echo fishfinder which integrates into Hobarts Aegis to form a cohesive picture of the planet mixing sensor data from everything.

Also fairly casual about increasing the RAN manning by around 400 and the budget by billions. Also by sticking stuff onto ships, you will increase the manning requirement.

Sure we could do that. Give the Arafura a bit more kick and have more of them. ~400 crew is a lot. That is like the crew of a Canberra class (or a dedicated carrier), a Burke destroyer, or two hobart destroyers. Or 8 submarines. Or 4 A140's. There is no free lunch in expanding.

IMO he would do better being a bit more rounded and covering strengths and weaknesses of options. His videos sound like the is the guy selling the platform and weapon systems. It feels a bit click baity.. Defence ministers hate this one trick... The fresh perspective wears a bit thin.

 

[ddxx]

Also fairly casual about increasing the RAN manning by around 400 and the budget by billions. Also by sticking stuff onto ships, you will increase the manning requirement.

Sure we could do that. Give the Arafura a bit more kick and have more of them. ~400 crew is a lot. That is like the crew of a Canberra class (or a dedicated carrier), a Burke destroyer, or two hobart destroyers. Or 8 submarines. Or 4 A140's. There is no free lunch in expanding.

This is one of the key reasons why I think going down the path of 20 Arafura/Arafura derived vessels for OPV and MCM would be a substantial and rather shortsighted mistake.

20 Arafura's would require 800 crew - and that's just for the basic core crew of 40 per vessel. Realistically, you're likely looking at ~1,000.

Cap Arafura construction at 12, and invest in some GP Frigates with plenty of room for mission toolkits e.g. MCM USVs.

 

[ADMk2]

Well, he is super happy about how to pronounce Thales, as a frenchman.

Not sure how he wants to attached 4 x LRASM onto an OPV, a 10 ton installation. Plus he is getting the ADF to develop a box launcher for this configuration (and a system for launching it from 9LV on the OPV inc integration). Lets just ignore NSM, which is far lighter, far smaller, already available in a light weight box launcher, or RBS15 with 9LV. Not to mention if the Arafura are in range to use weapons, so are the Arafuras in range of the enemies weapons. In that exchange I would expect the Arafura's to come off 2nd best with a missile exchange with a Chinese destroyer taskforce.

He does see the value in it as a sensor platform. Sea lancer is a viable system to look at. IMO. He misses a lot of the value of it operating in conjunction with a specialist ASW combatant (Hobart/Hunter) and its air. Its not just a value from a towed array. Also integration is magical. My Navman in my car integrates with my tinnys garmin echo fishfinder which integrates into Hobarts Aegis to form a cohesive picture of the planet mixing sensor data from everything.

Also fairly casual about increasing the RAN manning by around 400 and the budget by billions. Also by sticking stuff onto ships, you will increase the manning requirement.

Sure we could do that. Give the Arafura a bit more kick and have more of them. ~400 crew is a lot. That is like the crew of a Canberra class (or a dedicated carrier), a Burke destroyer, or two hobart destroyers. Or 8 submarines. Or 4 A140's. There is no free lunch in expanding.

IMO he would do better being a bit more rounded and covering strengths and weaknesses of options. His videos sound like the is the guy selling the platform and weapon systems. It feels a bit click baity.. Defence ministers hate this one trick... The fresh perspective wears a bit thin.

Yup, zero discussion on the impact on the vessel itself, of his various options. He notes the similar RBN vessel mounting Exocet and then notes how much smaller and lighter Exocet is than LRASM but doesn’t bother explaining how the much larger LRASM is supposed to fit in the very tight space in which Exocet is housed on that RBN ship… Nor does the impact of LRASM rocket-boosted backblast on the RHIB’s which would be positioned directly in the path of that backblast on an Arafura but which are conspicuously absent for “some reason” (not sure what it could possibly be…) on the RBN vessel, seem to matter much in his world… Maybe in his world, just buy an unlimited supply of RHIB’s and if you happen to write one off due to an LRASM launch, well just write that off as the cost of doing business?

Similarly SeaRAM (which I assume he is proposing as that is the only system he showed). The only place I can think that could be successfully mounted is on a special mount at the rear of the flight deck… What that might do to flight operations of a UAS system, nor the overall handling of the vessel, or even whether the vessel has the structural strength to handle that weigh (6t plus change) in that location is of course left un-discussed. The fact that RAN has showed more interest previously in the French SIMBAD SAM system (mooted for ANZAC Class pre- WIP) than it EVER has in the RIM-116 RAM system, is also left un-discussed as is any other possible air self-defence system…

Nor is the impact of effectively replacing the stern launched RHIB with a towed sonar array (if I understood his proposals correctly) and who and where on the ship might be able to cater for these air defence, ASW and ASuW missions suddenly added to this vessel…

I’ve advocated for a long time, a better gun on these (Bofors Mk.4 40mm plus 3P ammunition or Bofors Mk.3 57mm seem the most likely choices) that give them ‘some’ improved ASuW and AD capability to me seems a desirable upgrade... But a new gun, an air defence missile, LRASM and a towed sonar array onto these is simply ludicrous.

If you stripped off all the currently planned mission systems for the Arafura’s, didn’t give a toss about vessel stability, EM environment, crewing, available Ops room space or the fact that you are contemplating giving a vessel that has a cheap 2D radar ONLY on-board, an air defence mission…

Well sure, why not? Makes loads of sense… In fact why stop at LRASM? Let’s find a way to put containerised Tomahawk onto that flight deck… Give them a land attack mission as well, seeing as though completely ignoring other mission systems seems to be the way to go…

 

[vonnoobie]

If we are turning the Arafura'a into armed combatants so easily why not skip that and grab a cargo ship of some kind. Circa 100,000t can just slap on some VLS, Aegis, 30 or so CIWS, maybe a THAAD battery.. bobs your uncle we have a Battleship.

Seriously though while I wouldn't have been opposed to a fitted for but not with to make that work out to best of it's abilities would have required that thought before the class was chosen. Trying to cram them on after the fact risks the class providing zero benefits to the broader RAN and even risking it's capability to carry out its core tasks that it was acquired to do.

If anything as it takes time we should start considering what we want the future Arafura replacement to be capable of doing now so that it is ready to go to replace the Arafura's when the time comes even if an early replacement and just gift the Arafura's onto some mates in the region.

 

[ngatimozart]

If we are turning the Arafura'a into armed combatants so easily why not skip that and grab a cargo ship of some kind. Circa 100,000t can just slap on some VLS, Aegis, 30 or so CIWS, maybe a THAAD battery.. bobs your uncle we have a Battleship.

Seriously though while I wouldn't have been opposed to a fitted for but not with to make that work out to best of it's abilities would have required that thought before the class was chosen. Trying to cram them on after the fact risks the class providing zero benefits to the broader RAN and even risking it's capability to carry out its core tasks that it was acquired to do.

If anything as it takes time we should start considering what we want the future Arafura replacement to be capable of doing now so that it is ready to go to replace the Arafura's when the time comes even if an early replacement and just gift the Arafura's onto some mates in the region.

Don't forget the eight triple 16in gun turrets.

 

[Volkodav]

Like an RFA?

Tried selling that. Yes it comes at a cost. Yes the ships (probably) won't turn a profit. Yes the Unions are likely to become stronger.

Frankly, I don't care. I need sea lift, the RAN needs hydro and RAS ships. The RFA is a success of more than 100 years. We can write the obligations and contracts and the like to minimise domestic risk.

But, I couldn't.

Le sigh

Maybe roll in customs and all the border force stuff. RAN could free up personnel by giving sealift back to the RAE, Adelaide and Canberra commanded by RAE Colonels anyone, though army being army they may just decide they are only boats and appoint WO1s as skippers?

 

[Volkodav]

Well, he is super happy about how to pronounce Thales, as a frenchman.

Not sure how he wants to attached 4 x LRASM onto an OPV, a 10 ton installation. Plus he is getting the ADF to develop a box launcher for this configuration (and a system for launching it from 9LV on the OPV inc integration). Lets just ignore NSM, which is far lighter, far smaller, already available in a light weight box launcher, or RBS15 with 9LV. Not to mention if the Arafura are in range to use weapons, so are the Arafuras in range of the enemies weapons. In that exchange I would expect the Arafura's to come off 2nd best with a missile exchange with a Chinese destroyer taskforce.

He does see the value in it as a sensor platform. Sea lancer is a viable system to look at. IMO. He misses a lot of the value of it operating in conjunction with a specialist ASW combatant (Hobart/Hunter) and its air. Its not just a value from a towed array. Also integration is magical. My Navman in my car integrates with my tinnys garmin echo fishfinder which integrates into Hobarts Aegis to form a cohesive picture of the planet mixing sensor data from everything.

Also fairly casual about increasing the RAN manning by around 400 and the budget by billions. Also by sticking stuff onto ships, you will increase the manning requirement.

Sure we could do that. Give the Arafura a bit more kick and have more of them. ~400 crew is a lot. That is like the crew of a Canberra class (or a dedicated carrier), a Burke destroyer, or two hobart destroyers. Or 8 submarines. Or 4 A140's. There is no free lunch in expanding.

IMO he would do better being a bit more rounded and covering strengths and weaknesses of options. His videos sound like the is the guy selling the platform and weapon systems. It feels a bit click baity.. Defence ministers hate this one trick... The fresh perspective wears a bit thin.

The only reason I would arm an Arafura with any high end weapons is to provide a couple of them as training platforms using in
service systems to streamline training of the extra personnel we need to somehow train to operate our new gear, while a third to a half of our combatants are out of the water at any given time over the next decade being life extended and upgraded.

We are going to need more WEOs PWOs, CSOs, and ETs going forward. Also Coms and EW operators and maintainers. Armed Arafuras could be a way to train and give these people sea time. Base one at Cerberus and one at Creswell, stuff that maybe two at each location, alternating between alongside and sea training. Longest period at sea is say two weeks and quite often only a couple of days, maybe even just day trips, whatever provides the most effective and productive training.

If we are growing our fleet we need to look at a GP frigate to replace the Arafuras while continuing with the Hunters. We need either a sufficiently sized homogenous high end fleet of major combatants or a mix of enough high end majors, supported by a larger number of complementary good enough GP ships. People smarter than me can probably work out the numbers verses capability equations, that said, if the platform is not survivable, then the systems fitted are wasted and would be better fitted to the back of a truck.

Looking completely outside the square, how much would a couple of modified Izumos cost and how soon could they be delivered? The complete opposite to a sexed up OPV, a ship that could operate F-35B, MH-60R, heliborne AEW and in the future, potentially an marinized Loyal Wingman. I suspect, using the LHDs to develop the capability, these could achieve IOC before the first SSN could.

 

[OldTex]

The only reason I would arm an Arafura with any high end weapons is to provide a couple of them as training platforms using in
service systems to streamline training of the extra personnel we need to somehow train to operate our new gear, while a third to a half of our combatants are out of the water at any given time over the next decade being life extended and upgraded.

We are going to need more WEOs PWOs, CSOs, and ETs going forward. Also Coms and EW operators and maintainers. Armed Arafuras could be a way to train and give these people sea time. Base one at Cerberus and one at Creswell, stuff that maybe two at each location, alternating between alongside and sea training. Longest period at sea is say two weeks and quite often only a couple of days, maybe even just day trips, whatever provides the most effective and productive training.

If we are growing our fleet we need to look at a GP frigate to replace the Arafuras while continuing with the Hunters. We need either a sufficiently sized homogenous high end fleet of major combatants or a mix of enough high end majors, supported by a larger number of complementary good enough GP ships. People smarter than me can probably work out the numbers verses capability equations, that said, if the platform is not survivable, then the systems fitted are wasted and would be better fitted to the back of a truck.

Looking completely outside the square, how much would a couple of modified Izumos cost and how soon could they be delivered? The complete opposite to a sexed up OPV, a ship that could operate F-35B, MH-60R, heliborne AEW and in the future, potentially an marinized Loyal Wingman. I suspect, using the LHDs to develop the capability, these could achieve IOC before the first SSN could.

What other ADF capabilities would you have deferred or scrapped in order to provide both the manpower and financial resources to meet this proposed structure? Do the existing training establishments have the capacity to ramp up the training through put so that the new shiny ships can be crewed?
I seriously doubt that the ADF can provide capabilities tailored to every single possible situation. In some cases current or future capabilities may be in excess of what is required for the specific situation, while for others they will be less than what might be desired. It is all comes down to what level of risk the Government and the Australian people are prepared to accept.

 

[Stampede]

Depending on the level of harms way we could in all probability have a supply vessel and LHD as part of a task force sailing within the protective bubble provided by the Anzac and Hobart Classes.
The question is why, not one of the Arafura Class?
Many of these will be configured for MCM and survey work both of which can prove their worth in a given situation.
Again, it depends on the scenario and level of harms way.
So what about an OPV as is with 25mm Typhoon?
Much to offer in a flexible flight / mission deck for UAV's and mission containers.
Also three large RHIB's and some spare accommodation for mission specialists or SF personnel.
Certainly a handy package
We don't have that many supply ships, Amphibs, destroyers or Frigates.
Numbers matter.
With potentially up to twenty Arafura vessels in service, it's not an unreasonable assumption 2 or 3 could be available to join a task force.

So I hear the criticisms of what the vessel cannot do and I concur with a lot of what is written.
Realistically In hindsight my belief is we should of purchased a different vessel.
That said, it is what it is, we are getting the Arafura Class.

So I'll put NERD MODE ON!

57 mm canon we know is doable.
Around 8t with 120 rounds on mount. Keep it easy no deck penetration.

So what other options could be substituted on this forward space.

Air defence
- Phalanx or Sea Ram should be good for space and weight but I'd have reservations with the height.
-RAM in the Mk 144 missile launcher is big, but still fits within the space and weight.
-Mistral no probs off any of it's three launchers. plus a 30mm bushmaster forward of the launch system

Passive defence
Nulka and SRBOC launchers front or rear of the funnel.
Towed torpedo array within the container space under the flight deck.

ASW
The flight deck free of containers has the potential to carry a Romeo sized helicopter.
Aviation fuel bunkerage and the handling systems will need to be upgraded, but this was all a part of Lurssen's original design.
No hangar is a nuisance, not a deal breaker.
The ship is within a task-force for the maintenance stuff.
The ship is a lilypad and a parking spot.
Space and flexibility matter across the fleet.
An extra helicopter on a OPV could be a few extra vehicles spots within the LHD's Vehicle / hanger park or a logistics helicopter.
It all counts.

Land and maritime strike
Forget the big stuff.
Maybe NLOS Spike, but really I'd leave that to other assets or the ships UAV / Helicopter.

So would any of these additions be unrealistic......... I don't think so
Would any of these give a task force more mission capacity than the alternative of an OPV as is. I'd say yes.

We are getting the Arafura Class. It's not a fantasy
The question is what do want the fleet to look like in 2030.

The fleet as is with the Arafura Class as planed
or the fleet as is with something more robust,flexible and capable to cover a greater range of contingency's

NERD MODE OFF!

Sorry Nagatimozart I couldn't find the space for the 16 in guns



Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

What other ADF capabilities would you have deferred or scrapped in order to provide both the manpower and financial resources to meet this proposed structure? Do the existing training establishments have the capacity to ramp up the training through put so that the new shiny ships can be crewed?
I seriously doubt that the ADF can provide capabilities tailored to every single possible situation. In some cases current or future capabilities may be in excess of what is required for the specific situation, while for others they will be less than what might be desired. It is all comes down to what level of risk the Government and the Australian people are prepared to accept.

Defence is currently underspending every year, and if you read my entire post you would have seen the bit where I said the only armed OPVs I would support would be training ships to produce the required extra crews.

Reality check, armed OPVs are a false economy as they will never be survivable, i.e. using a hilux with a machine gun on the back against anything other than unarmed civilians. To make them survivable enough to justify arming them their cost will go up to about the same as a GP frigate, as will their crew size, bu they will still not be as capable or useful. In this sense, GP frigates make more sense than armed OPVs.

The Izumos were tongue in cheek but that said we are better placed to do this than we are to acquire nuclear powered submarines. We have two LHDs in service, we have F-35A in service, we have MH-60R in service. They are propelled by the LM2500 GT, they have plenty of space to install whatever systems we decide to. We basically have all the pieces already in service, entering service, or easily acquired. Japan could easily and quickly build two or more for us while we concurrently evolve the required capabilities using our LHDs. All of this could be done with some of the money we are not going to be spending on SEA 1000 over the next decade.

Given the will we could achieve IOC with a carrier and F-35B, AEW etc. before the first Hunter is commissioned. We could acquire carriers faster than an interim frigate. If we are talking how to increase capability quickly and efficiently getting Japan to build us carriers may be it.

 

[ADMk2]

What other ADF capabilities would you have deferred or scrapped in order to provide both the manpower and financial resources to meet this proposed structure? Do the existing training establishments have the capacity to ramp up the training through put so that the new shiny ships can be crewed?
I seriously doubt that the ADF can provide capabilities tailored to every single possible situation. In some cases current or future capabilities may be in excess of what is required for the specific situation, while for others they will be less than what might be desired. It is all comes down to what level of risk the Government and the Australian people are prepared to accept.

Read the news tomorrow. Finding personnel and money won’t be too hard…

 

[Massive]

Read the news tomorrow. Finding personnel and money won’t be too hard…

Does look that way.

More troops for nuclear submarines, cyber in $38 billion Defence Force expansion

The number of army, air force and navy personnel will rise to 80,000 by 2040 to help Australia face future threats, the Prime Minister said.

www.theage.com.au

Regards.

Massive

 

[Volkodav]

Likely won't see Izumos but the OPV based training fleet is looking to be a necessity. I am seriously wondering if a Flight III Burke could be a possibility to increase fleet size and cover the upgrade cycles of the Hobarts and ANZACs in the short term?

Izumos would still be nice though. Maybe a Japanese squadron, three Izumos and three Maya Class DDGs to supplement the Hunters and transfer the Hobarts to the RNZN

 

[Redlands18]

Does look that way.

More troops for nuclear submarines, cyber in $38 billion Defence Force expansion

The number of army, air force and navy personnel will rise to 80,000 by 2040 to help Australia face future threats, the Prime Minister said.

www.theage.com.au

Regards.

Massive

Super excited about the possibility of an 9th Hunter and additional Arafura's
Our magnificent Journo's strike again.

The ADF is basically the same size as it was in 1980 but the Population has grown by 40%, it really is time to increase numbers.

 

[Volkodav]

Super excited about the possibility of an 9th Hunter and additional Arafura's
Our magnificent Journo's strike again.

The ADF is basically the same size as it was in 1980 but the Population has grown by 40%, it really is time to increase numbers.

Colour me confused, but weren't additional Arafuras always planned and I don't recall any other number of Hunters than nine, ever being on the cards? Well way back when Smith was Defmin he did mention six Global Frigates (Type 26 precursors) to replace the eight ANZACs but this was when we were still hoping for a second batch of three Hobarts to avoid the valley of death.

 

[Redlands18]

Colour me confused, but weren't additional Arafuras always planned and I don't recall any other number of Hunters than nine, ever being on the cards? Well way back when Smith was Defmin he did mention six Global Frigates (Type 26 precursors) to replace the eight ANZACs but this was when we were still hoping for a second batch of three Hobarts to avoid the valley of death.

The Age reporter actually wrote in that Article "The Government is promising to increase the planned Hunter class from eight to nine vessels" as we know it has been 9 Frigates and 12 OPVs since the 2016 DWP and the extra Arafura's since the 2020 update. thus my rolled Eyes Emojis and comment.

 

[John Newman]

Colour me confused, but weren't additional Arafuras always planned and I don't recall any other number of Hunters than nine, ever being on the cards? Well way back when Smith was Defmin he did mention six Global Frigates (Type 26 precursors) to replace the eight ANZACs but this was when we were still hoping for a second batch of three Hobarts to avoid the valley of death.

V, all through the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd years the plan was always for ‘eight Future Frigates’, during both the 2009 DWP and 2013 DWP time period.

And during that time the fourth AWD option lapsed too.


The change from eight to nine Future Frigates happened when the Abbott/Turnbull 2016 DWP was released.

You could argue the ninth Frigate made up for the loss of the fourth AWD, and it also made the continuous Naval Shipbuilding Plan workable too.