Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

hauritz

Well-Known Member
I can see a long term ongoing large ship building program similar to the OPV, frigates and submarines. At this stage I am wondering just how large this dry dock will be.

Is it too ambitious to expect that Australia may eventually be able to build ships large enough to replace the LHDs?
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
You’d have to reasonably expect the new dry dock being able to accommodate the LHDs for maintenance purposes, which should mean a future LHD replacement project could use that same piece of infrastructure for construction.

The dimensions of the Captain Cook Graving Dock are 1,139 feet 5 inches (347.29 m) long, with a width of 147 feet 7.5 inches (44.996 m), and 45 feet (14 m) deep.
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
You’d have to reasonably expect the new dry dock being able to accommodate the LHDs for maintenance purposes, which should mean a future LHD replacement project could use that same piece of infrastructure for construction.

The dimensions of the Captain Cook Graving Dock are 1,139 feet 5 inches (347.29 m) long, with a width of 147 feet 7.5 inches (44.996 m), and 45 feet (14 m) deep.
pardon my ignorance, but is the ‘new dry dock‘ for repair, or a dry dock for construction?
I imagine construction will make the dock otherwise unusable for years at a time until the build could be floated/moved, and heavier repair in the West will still be lacking.

cheers to all.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
pardon my ignorance, but is the ‘new dry dock‘ for repair, or a dry dock for construction?
I imagine construction will make the dock otherwise unusable for years at a time until the build could be floated/moved, and heavier repair in the West will still be lacking.

cheers to all.
Both will have a repair role and this would impact on the ability to use the Captain Cook dock for construction as it would tie up an essential maintenance asset for quite some time.

The WA dock may have the same issues but there is insufficient information to confirm. However, the fact the the JSS construction is mooted for WA suggests an arrangement to construct large hull vessels is being sought.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Fair winds and following seas Bill. Talk about a hell of a career. (article sourced through Defence News account)

Navy diver steered demolition missions
By Tim Barlass, Obituary Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald
Tuesday 15th March 2022 at 12:00am

William (Bill) Fitzgerald was a legendary clearance diver with the Royal Australian Navy who was charged with demolition of ordnance after World War II.

Wearing the heavy and cumbersome equipment of the time, he would dive on the American bombs and Japanese and British mines left in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Often, low water visibility meant that he worked at great personal risk, hardly able to see his hand in front of his metal helmet.

In later operations, he dived on an Australian atomic test site despite being told by the bomb's developer that the work would leave him sterile for five years. He also made a high-risk dive to the depth of 79 metres to free the sluice gates of the Eucumbene Dam in the Snowy Mountains.

William Terence Fitzgerald was born at the Cottage Hospital in Chatswood on March 23, 1929, one of three sons and three sisters born to father Sydney William Fitzgerald, who also had a prominent Royal Australian Navy career, and mother Florence (nee Bavistock), who was born in Southsea near Portsmouth.

Sydney Fitzgerald, who was enlisted as chief petty officer's torpedoman mate, was a survivor of the attack on the destroyer HMAS Nestor in June 1942 when the ship, part of a convoy taking supplies to Malta, came under air attack from German dive bombers and had to be scuttled the next day. In 1944, he was admitted into care suffering from what was then known as shell shock.

Bill entered the RAN on May 30, 1946, keen to follow in his father's footsteps, and when told he was to be a gunner, stood his ground, saying: ‘‘I'm not going to be a gunner, I'm going to be a torpedo man.'' He won the day.

Initially, he trained as a pump hand for a standard diver before volunteering for the three-weeklong RMS (render mines safe) course held at HMAS Penguin on Middle Head. In September 1947, he was posted to HMAS Tarangau, headquarters of the Papua-New Guinea Division of the Royal Australian Navy.

Interviewed at the age of 90 about his service, he said: ‘‘I was pulling bombs out from under wharves and God knows what else. World War Two was supposed to be finished, and it wasn't.

‘‘[On one occasion] I donned a modified diving set, went down and pulled the bombs out [and] they were 500-pound armour-piercing Japanese bombs. Jap navy bombs have got rivets on them, Jap army bombs are three-inch skinned.

They are all tail-fused. Took the fuses out, pulled the bombs up, took them away and blew them up.''

After 12 months in New Guinea, he returned to Australia in September 1948 and met his wife, Madge, at a dance at Luna Park. He had gone to her aid after the 16-year-old fainted, having inhaled from her first cigarette.

During the Korean War in 1952, he served on the Bay-class frigate HMAS Murchison, and was trapped in the Han River when the ship, ‘‘with a few holes in it'', came under continuous machine-gun fire 180 metres from the shore. ‘‘I did all the sounding in that river to get the ship into a position to bombard - 8000 soundings we did, by lead and line,'' he said.

Fitzgerald joined HMAS Hawkesbury in 1952, when he was involved in recovery of items from the Monte Bello Islands atomic test site in Western Australia. The British test involved detonation of a 25-kiloton nuclear fission bomb to gauge impact on foodstuffs, shipping and defensive structures.

He recalled he was informed on deck by the bomb's developer, Sir William Penney, about the inherent risks of the job: ‘‘He said that with the work you have to do here, you will be sterile for five years. We still did the job. We were ordered to do it and we did it.

‘‘I had two sons before the Monte Bello and didn't have a daughter until five years after, who was born on Anzac Day.'' He had two sons and then two daughters.

In 1955, there was a requirement for the first clearance divers to be called up into the navy. Fitzgerald was deemed worthy to be accepted, even though he was considered over-age at 25. He successfully passed and became one of the first clearance divers for the RAN at the rank of petty officer.

He said the requirement for a good clearance diver was ‘‘to be above average intelligence, young, healthy [and] have a can-do attitude. The impossible sometimes takes a bit longer and so long as you remember that, and you keep your mouth shut, you will make a good clearance diver.''

Following the course, he went on to become a diving instructor at Rushcutters Bay. His exploits included diving on the wreck of the destroyer USS Peary in Darwin, sunk at anchor in 1942 by Japanese aircraft, to remove weaponry before she was cut up. The dives on Peary could last only one hour a day at slack water at low or high tide because of 25 knot currents. In almost nil visibility, the dive involved rendering safe the numerous torpedo warheads.

The Eastern Area Mobile Clearance Diving Team was formed in 1956-1957. Fitzgerald became its chief before eventually it became Clearance Diving Team One, which it remains today. In the late 1950s, the team had only 12 people, but today it is 60 members strong.

In 1962, Fitzgerald was one of the team involved in a project at the Eucumbene Dam to free the sluice gates at a depth of around 79 metres - a job that took nearly six months to complete. After 12 minutes breathing air on the initial dive, he was suffering ‘‘pretty bad'' narcosis, a reversible change in consciousness as gases at high pressure cause an anaesthetic effect. He surfaced feeling terrible, believing he was going to get the staggers (decompression sickness), but after being laid down and given pure oxygen, he was considered by the underwater medical specialist to be OK.

In 1963, he dived on the British submarine HMS Tabard, which was involved in a navy exercise with HMAS Melbourne. The submarine had developed technical problems and was unable to dive. He found that a main inlet valve was blocked by sand and effected the repair, underwater and alone, with the aid of a seven pound hammer.

On a lighter note, Fitzgerald tells of playing rugby for the navy diving team up against their main rivals, a team from the HMAS Watson training school at South Head. The divers used to train in overalls in the water and in bare feet.

In a clash at Rushcutters Bay Park, the Watson team was leading 15-0 at half-time. He said: ‘‘We went behind the dressing shed, had a whiff of oxygen and half a glass of rum, took our boots off and beat them 30-15.''

He also coached the water polo team, which trained in overalls with three-pound lead weights in the pockets so that when they played a game, ‘‘they were walking on water''.

Fitzgerald finished his full-time service as a chief instructor for all courses at HMAS Rushcutter and transitioned from the permanent service in 1966. But he continued to serve as a reservist until 1984totalling 37 years and 138 days of total service.

His love of and interest in diving carried over into civilian life. He became a private diving instructor and helped to develop and establish the hyperbaric unit at Prince Henry Hospital in Sydney, delivering over 1500 therapies over four years. He was then asked to join the CSIRO to train and supervise their marine biologists in diving for a further five years.

In 1976, he took over a position with a prominent safety equipment firm and became their sales manager, discussing the safety equipment and breathing apparatus issues with managers in a wide variety of private and public industries, including the RAN, and supplying equipment to meet their needs.

In the Queen's Birthday Honours List of 1999, Fitzgerald received an OAM for ‘‘service to diving, and to the development and training in the use of life support breathing apparatus'' - a unique citation for a unique person with a unique skill set.

Speaking at the nursing home in Warriewood, he said: ‘‘If I had my time over again, I would do it exactly the same.''

Bill Fitzgerald is survived by Madge, Debra, Rebecca, Terry and Steven, sibling Gloria and six grandchildren, one of whom predeceased his grandfather.

Bill Fitzgerald was the navy's top clearance diver, receiving an OAM in 1999; Fitzgerald and wife Madge met as teenagers.
Wonderful storey, dedicated man.
However I’m still waiting for those 26 knot “currents” in Darwin Harbour.
Methinks some journalistic ineptitude.
 

Mark_Evans

Member
Wonderful storey, dedicated man.
However I’m still waiting for those 26 knot “currents” in Darwin Harbour.
Methinks some journalistic ineptitude.
Darwin Harbour was a crazy place to learn to scuba dive. Very strong tides.
You could tell the new ships coming in because they would ask why we would run out so much telephone cable between the wharf and the ship. I would just say see you in a few hours. Come back later in the day and the gangway has completely reversed its angle and don't need to say a thing. Just smile.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
pardon my ignorance, but is the ‘new dry dock‘ for repair, or a dry dock for construction?
I imagine construction will make the dock otherwise unusable for years at a time until the build could be floated/moved, and heavier repair in the West will still be lacking.

cheers to all.
The media release from the Def Min:


Paragraph from the media release:

“The Henderson dry-dock will enable the construction and sustainment of large naval vessels in Australia and support an even stronger commercial shipbuilding and sustainment market in Western Australia.”


I think that is a pretty clear statement, “construction AND sustainment of large naval vessels”.

Potentially a larger floating dock (larger than the current one), could be added too if capacity problems arise.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Both will have a repair role and this would impact on the ability to use the Captain Cook dock for construction as it would tie up an essential maintenance asset for quite some time.

The WA dock may have the same issues but there is insufficient information to confirm. However, the fact the the JSS construction is mooted for WA suggests an arrangement to construct large hull vessels is being sought.
Further to your above, If the dock built is a “graving” dock similar to Captain Cook it will have the ability to refit and build simultaneously provided it is long enough. Two or three caissons (flooded pontoon gates) can create seperate dock sections depending on vessel size.
IMHO the dock, in whatever chosen form, has to be large enough for allies to use in emergencies, USN LHDs, SSNs, USNS etc.
The current large docks in the ME, Singapore, Japan and ROK are all geographically close contested environments.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Darwin Harbour was a crazy place to learn to scuba dive. Very strong tides.
You could tell the new ships coming in because they would ask why we would run out so much telephone cable between the wharf and the ship. I would just say see you in a few hours. Come back later in the day and the gangway has completely reversed its angle and don't need to say a thing. Just smile.
Diving in Darwin harbour is realistically limited to the middle of the neap cycle, 2, 3 or 4 days at most. Visibility is the limiting factor.
Tidal range during springs is 8mtrs so this can mean tidal streams of 3 to 4 kts max, especially along the outer wall at DNB (Darwin Naval Base) where construction of the new 250mtr wharf is underway.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Further to your above, If the dock built is a “graving” dock similar to Captain Cook it will have the ability to refit and build simultaneously provided it is long enough. Two or three caissons (flooded pontoon gates) can create seperate dock sections depending on vessel size.
IMHO the dock, in whatever chosen form, has to be large enough for allies to use in emergencies, USN LHDs, SSNs, USNS etc.
The current large docks in the ME, Singapore, Japan and ROK are all geographically close contested environments.
Colour me stupid but wouldn't a shiplift be more sensible as even the biggest ships we plan are still small enough to move on a hard stand? Graving dock in many ways is more limited I would have thought?
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Colour me stupid but wouldn't a shiplift be more sensible as even the biggest ships we plan are still small enough to move on a hard stand? Graving dock in many ways is more limited I would have thought?
Certainly the Captain Cook dock has flexibility due to its arrangement. Melbourne (R21) and frigates were docked at the same time in the past. However, if it were dedicated to building something like an LHD the whole dock is likely to be taken up. The French option for building the LHD's did propose (as one option) consolidating blocks in the Captain Cook dock that were built else where. This did raise some concern about the facility being unavailable for other work.

Interestingly Cockatoo Island had a building way and a dock that could have handled something like the JSS. That, however, is history and is pretty much a dead duck as an option.

It is quite an investment in Henderson and Osbourne which (provided political will remains in place) should provide Australia a capability to build all future vessels.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Colour me stupid but wouldn't a shiplift be more sensible as even the biggest ships we plan are still small enough to move on a hard stand? Graving dock in many ways is more limited I would have thought?
I haven’t advocated for any specific type of lift/dock I simply make the point that it needs to be useable by large ships.
Syncrolifts are useful up to 30k tonnes but their disadvantages are ongoing cost and capacity.
They must be kept in continuous survey by one of the classification societies and this means every single winch cable (hundreds) must be changed every 3 years IIRC and winches certified. Spoz will know the routine I suspect.
Synchros are best for high density continuous use and I don’t think that applies in this case. Their supporters will argue that many commercial vessels will refit in Australia if a large lift is built however I doubt if we could ever be cost effective compared to overseas yards.
 

protoplasm

Active Member
IMHO the dock, in whatever chosen form, has to be large enough for allies to use in emergencies, USN LHDs, SSNs, USNS etc.
The current large docks in the ME, Singapore, Japan and ROK are all geographically close contested environments.
If we are building for the long term, there may be a weather eye looking at the possibility of being able to repair Nimitz/Ford sized things if there was a hot conflict in our area. Being able to do below waterline repairs to LHA/CVN on the west coast may be beneficial in the late 20s and 30s...
 

Mark_Evans

Member
If we are building for the long term, there may be a weather eye looking at the possibility of being able to repair Nimitz/Ford sized things if there was a hot conflict in our area. Being able to do below waterline repairs to LHA/CVN on the west coast may be beneficial in the late 20s and 30s...
If you are considering dry docking a Ford class you are talking around 360m. Even the US only has 1 of these dry docks with plans to upgrade two more.
 
Colour me stupid but wouldn't a shiplift be more sensible as even the biggest ships we plan are still small enough to move on a hard stand? Graving dock in many ways is more limited I would have thought?
Agreed surely this is for maintenance I am trying to work out when was the last time the RAN built a warship in a dry dock and maybe 1950's?

doesn't mean the project isn't really important from a maintenance POV though RAN has lost a lot of dry docks over last 30 years
 
Last edited:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Agreed surely this is for maintenance I am trying to work out when was the last time the RAN built a warship in a dry dock and maybe 1950's?

doesn't mean the project isn't really important from a maintenance POV though RAN has lost a lot of dry docks over last 30 years
I don't think Australia has build any ship in a drydock, certainly Australia have not built a warship in a dry dock. There were certainly a number of building ways with an associated drydock for fitting out (as opposed to build). Cockatoo Island and Williamstown both used this approach.

Chapter 3 - A brief history of Australia's Naval shipbuilding industry – Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au)

Drydocks are used in a lot of modern construction yards as a dedicated building facility and this is an efficient way of building large vessels. HHI being a case in point with dedicated docks.

Hyundai Heavy Industries Ulsan Shipyard, South Korea (ship-technology.com)

A dedicated dock in Henderson would be a very useful asset but build and sustainment noting there is already a ship lift facility there (and I understand this will also be upgraded).
 

RJB2022

New Member
Here is the link
I've never been a fan of the Arafura design it's the wrong vessel for what we need, even if they up gun the vessel it's going to be another ANZAC frigate where they max out the hull tonnage also limit capabilities and armament.. They should of always went for a larger vessel like the UK Type31 multirole frigate that has a solid armament capability with more hull tonnage for future additions as technology evolves over decades.. Besides that we do not have enough warships as it is especially with rotational maintenance and upgrades on our current fleet for the next decade, Arafura is never going to fill them shortfalls..

If Canberra was smart they would of done the ANZAC frigate CEAFAR2 Radar upgrade on the iver huitfeldt-class frigate with the 32 VLS that could be upgraded to 48 replacing the millennial gun on the front.. Canberra should of gone with 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate design offered as the ANZAC frigate replacement and put the stern dock mission bay like UK did with the Type31 frigate also built 8 Hobart Hobart AWD's.. Our type26 Hunter class frigates had 72 VLS as the original Global Combat ship design which should of kept and made it our future AWD vessel.. If Canberra did this years ago when it was offered we could of had 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate, 8 Hobart AWD's, then for after 2030 we add additional 8 hunter class AWD's vessels, Taiwan would of scooped up our ASW ANZAC frigates or we could mothball them and train Pacific islanders as mixed crews with Aus for a reserve fleet.. By 2040 Aus will have over 34 million population from our future population forecast it might even be higher wit ScoMo recent anouncement to fast track immigration to increase Aus population now, we could fill them ships and 12 to 16 Submarines.. If they open ADF recruiting instead of capping it at critical minimum we could operate 16 surface combatants and 10 Submarines now with our 26 million population.. It is still not to late to build Type31 multirole frigates for our navy instead of Arafura OPV's, they cost close to the same with similar build time lines..

We should also be shifting Patrol boat duties to our ABFC maritime branch to operate alongside the Pacific islands and the 20+ Guardian class PB's we gifted them.. Arafura OPV is the right vessel for our ABFC maritime branch especially with a 30 mm gun turret, 10 Arafura OPV with the 10 Cape class ABFC already has operating alongside the pacific island 20+ Guardian class is more than enough Patrol boats for Aus and the Pacific islands to deal with Patrol boat duties.. Open up ADF reservists then put them on the additional ABFC vessels and when need to we can operate the ABFC vessels alongside our ADF in future conflict scenario's.. Canberra plans now will give us 20 patol boats for the RAN, 12 for ABFC and 20+ Guardian class for the Pacific which gives us close to 55 Patrol boats with 3 AWD's, 8 Frigates and 6 submarines which we lose half our fleet of surface vessels and boats for the next decade of scheduled upgrades and refits.. Currently we have 4 ANZAC frigates, 2 AWD's and 3 Collins as our naval combat element, we do not need more patrol boats we need more warships and submarines..
 

Morgo

Well-Known Member
I've never been a fan of the Arafura design it's the wrong vessel for what we need, even if they up gun the vessel it's going to be another ANZAC frigate where they max out the hull tonnage also limit capabilities and armament.. They should of always went for a larger vessel like the UK Type31 multirole frigate that has a solid armament capability with more hull tonnage for future additions as technology evolves over decades.. Besides that we do not have enough warships as it is especially with rotational maintenance and upgrades on our current fleet for the next decade, Arafura is never going to fill them shortfalls..

If Canberra was smart they would of done the ANZAC frigate CEAFAR2 Radar upgrade on the iver huitfeldt-class frigate with the 32 VLS that could be upgraded to 48 replacing the millennial gun on the front.. Canberra should of gone with 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate design offered as the ANZAC frigate replacement and put the stern dock mission bay like UK did with the Type31 frigate also built 8 Hobart Hobart AWD's.. Our type26 Hunter class frigates had 72 VLS as the original Global Combat ship design which should of kept and made it our future AWD vessel.. If Canberra did this years ago when it was offered we could of had 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate, 8 Hobart AWD's, then for after 2030 we add additional 8 hunter class AWD's vessels, Taiwan would of scooped up our ASW ANZAC frigates or we could mothball them and train Pacific islanders as mixed crews with Aus for a reserve fleet.. By 2040 Aus will have over 34 million population from our future population forecast it might even be higher wit ScoMo recent anouncement to fast track immigration to increase Aus population now, we could fill them ships and 12 to 16 Submarines.. If they open ADF recruiting instead of capping it at critical minimum we could operate 16 surface combatants and 10 Submarines now with our 26 million population.. It is still not to late to build Type31 multirole frigates for our navy instead of Arafura OPV's, they cost close to the same with similar build time lines..

We should also be shifting Patrol boat duties to our ABFC maritime branch to operate alongside the Pacific islands and the 20+ Guardian class PB's we gifted them.. Arafura OPV is the right vessel for our ABFC maritime branch especially with a 30 mm gun turret, 10 Arafura OPV with the 10 Cape class ABFC already has operating alongside the pacific island 20+ Guardian class is more than enough Patrol boats for Aus and the Pacific islands to deal with Patrol boat duties.. Open up ADF reservists then put them on the additional ABFC vessels and when need to we can operate the ABFC vessels alongside our ADF in future conflict scenario's.. Canberra plans now will give us 20 patol boats for the RAN, 12 for ABFC and 20+ Guardian class for the Pacific which gives us close to 55 Patrol boats with 3 AWD's, 8 Frigates and 6 submarines which we lose half our fleet of surface vessels and boats for the next decade of scheduled upgrades and refits.. Currently we have 4 ANZAC frigates, 2 AWD's and 3 Collins as our naval combat element, we do not need more patrol boats we need more warships and submarines..
So to summarise your plan is to:

- cancel the Arafuras and build Type 31s
- uncancel the Arafuras and transfer them to Border Force?

I can’t say that sounds like the best idea in the world.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
So to summarise your plan is to:

- cancel the Arafuras and build Type 31s
- uncancel the Arafuras and transfer them to Border Force?

I can’t say that sounds like the best idea in the world.
I've never been a fan of the Arafura design it's the wrong vessel for what we need, even if they up gun the vessel it's going to be another ANZAC frigate where they max out the hull tonnage also limit capabilities and armament.. They should of always went for a larger vessel like the UK Type31 multirole frigate that has a solid armament capability with more hull tonnage for future additions as technology evolves over decades.. Besides that we do not have enough warships as it is especially with rotational maintenance and upgrades on our current fleet for the next decade, Arafura is never going to fill them shortfalls..

If Canberra was smart they would of done the ANZAC frigate CEAFAR2 Radar upgrade on the iver huitfeldt-class frigate with the 32 VLS that could be upgraded to 48 replacing the millennial gun on the front.. Canberra should of gone with 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate design offered as the ANZAC frigate replacement and put the stern dock mission bay like UK did with the Type31 frigate also built 8 Hobart Hobart AWD's.. Our type26 Hunter class frigates had 72 VLS as the original Global Combat ship design which should of kept and made it our future AWD vessel.. If Canberra did this years ago when it was offered we could of had 8 iver huitfeldt-class frigate, 8 Hobart AWD's, then for after 2030 we add additional 8 hunter class AWD's vessels, Taiwan would of scooped up our ASW ANZAC frigates or we could mothball them and train Pacific islanders as mixed crews with Aus for a reserve fleet.. By 2040 Aus will have over 34 million population from our future population forecast it might even be higher wit ScoMo recent anouncement to fast track immigration to increase Aus population now, we could fill them ships and 12 to 16 Submarines.. If they open ADF recruiting instead of capping it at critical minimum we could operate 16 surface combatants and 10 Submarines now with our 26 million population.. It is still not to late to build Type31 multirole frigates for our navy instead of Arafura OPV's, they cost close to the same with similar build time lines..

We should also be shifting Patrol boat duties to our ABFC maritime branch to operate alongside the Pacific islands and the 20+ Guardian class PB's we gifted them.. Arafura OPV is the right vessel for our ABFC maritime branch especially with a 30 mm gun turret, 10 Arafura OPV with the 10 Cape class ABFC already has operating alongside the pacific island 20+ Guardian class is more than enough Patrol boats for Aus and the Pacific islands to deal with Patrol boat duties.. Open up ADF reservists then put them on the additional ABFC vessels and when need to we can operate the ABFC vessels alongside our ADF in future conflict scenario's.. Canberra plans now will give us 20 patol boats for the RAN, 12 for ABFC and 20+ Guardian class for the Pacific which gives us close to 55 Patrol boats with 3 AWD's, 8 Frigates and 6 submarines which we lose half our fleet of surface vessels and boats for the next decade of scheduled upgrades and refits.. Currently we have 4 ANZAC frigates, 2 AWD's and 3 Collins as our naval combat element, we do not need more patrol boats we need more warships and submarines..
Not totally against this.

Use the Arafuras to train the additional crews we need to increase numbers of majors down the track. Also use them for hydro and MCM, before cascading them to border force, maybe keeping a couple as the core of a training squadron.

I'm in two minds about additional Hobart's, they were acknowledged as having limited growth potential back when they were being built. I am more and more a fan of the Type 31 or a derivative of it.

I was initially a fan of an evolved K130 or a related MEKO corvette/light frigate design, due to commonalities with the Arafuras and ANZACs suggesting they could be quickly and easily built instead of later Arafuras while including systems developed for the ANZACs.

With the changing strategic situation a GP frigate makes more sense, especially as steel is cheap and air is free. Such a ship could be kicked of quite quickly, incorporating the enhanced systems intended for the ANZACs. It likely wouldn't enter service any sooner than originally planned for the Hunters, but could definately be delivered more quickly, supplementing and replacing the ANZACs earlier.

Introducing a GP frigate before the Hunters gives us the chance to further develop the Hunters to meet changing circumstances. For instance a hull stretch could be introduced to solve the weight / stability issues, while providing extra volume for required enhancements i.e. additional VLS, extra generation and or propulsive power. Maybe investigate installing payload modules for hypersonic missiles.

To me we need to be more versatile, but still realistic. Nothing will get into service faster than the already under construction Arafuras and the upgraded ANZACs. However we could increase numbers faster and provide breathing space by building Type 31s at Osborne while the Arafuras are built, and ANZACs life extended at Henderson. Then when the Hunters are ready to start the Type 31s can move to Henderson.

A win win, RAN gets extra hulls, trains more people. Civmec gets fully up to speed on OPVs and switches to frigates, ASC/BAE gets to grow and upskill their workforce on Type 31s before switching to Hunters (which hopefully are enhanced). Maybe OPVs for borderforce and MCM / Hydo versions could be built in Queensland.

The world is a more complex and dangerous place and we need to look not just at replacing capability, but increasing it.
 
Top