Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Bob53]

Bet

Both ASC and Civmec have demonstrated they can build the Arafuras quickly and efficiently with few if any issues. BAE and SAAB have demonstrated they can design and manage major capability upgrades for existing designs, that the designs were never intended to incorporate.

Then there is the Iver Huitfeldt / Arrowhead 140, three in service in Denmark, blocks for which were built to print in Estonia and Lithuania, now the modified Type 31 under construction for the UK and selected by Indonesia and Poland. The RN specified their own systems including some used in the Type 23 and Type 26, which Babcock have apparently integrated seamlessly.

So we have the teams that can deliver a timely supplement and replacement for the ANZACs, the only missing part is a decision.

The plusses:

• The ASC shipbuilding workforce expands earlier and cuts its teeth on a more advanced platform than the Arafuras.
• Hundreds of highly qualified and capable people available due to the end of SEA 1000, can be retained and gainfully employed.
• Civmec and BAE can take over the build when the Hunters start, ASC helping.
• Pressure taken off the ANZACs, i.e. not an many need to be upgraded as urgently.
• Capability can be increased without reducing active numbers.
• Active numbers can be increased.
• Arrowhead can be easily tailored to Patrol Frigate and GP frigate roles.
• Arrowhead can replace both the never built corvettes and the original role of the ANZACs, allowing the Hunters to supplement the Hobarts as replacements for the DDGs and FFGs
• New systems designed for the ANZACs and some designed for the Hunters can be incorporated into the Arrowheads

Basically a low risk way to increase capability withing a decade, possibly at lower risk, as well as mitigating risk, associated with the current upgrade and build plan.

Better send your plan to Min Def pronto.

 

[Volkodav]

Bet

Better send your plan to Min Def pronto.

I have no doubt he's already been told similar. He will also be getting bombarded with B-21s, and digging up and modernising the F-111 fleet, maybe raising the battlecruiser Australia for modernisation and restarting production of the sentinel tank.

 

[ddxx]

I have no doubt he's already been told similar. He will also be getting bombarded with B-21s, and digging up and modernising the F-111 fleet, maybe raising the battlecruiser Australia for modernisation and restarting production of the sentinel tank.

Never assume, group think in large organisations is a constant battle to overcome.

The B-21 push does my head in. As if Australia needs another ‘invisible’ high end platform when we have such a lack of visible power projection assets.

 

[Redlands18]

I have no doubt he's already been told similar. He will also be getting bombarded with B-21s, and digging up and modernising the F-111 fleet, maybe raising the battlecruiser Australia for modernisation and restarting production of the sentinel tank.

You could probably fit the Vampire with CEAFAR-2, Aegis and 32 Mk 41 VLS Cells as well

 

[StingrayOZ]

I like the A140 design, but its not in service in the RAN.

A A140 competitor like Sachsen Class frigate (76mm, 32vls, 2 x RAM launchers, 2 helos or the F-125 class) or the F110 class, (5", 16VLS room for more, 1 helo). Or the Constellation class/FREMM.

Then you need suppliers and sustainment, again, for a whole new type and configuration and prime. I know back office contract adminstration and supply and sustainment isn't as sexy as giant arcs of sparks from welders, but its more important, one can't happen without the other.

So even if you captain call it, and spend all your political capital on not nominating requirements, but just putting forward a design/platform/configuration. You will still need suppliers. You can't just snap your fingers for these to exist and the companies behind them. Particularly if you are building here. Then you have to force the other party to agree with you bipartisanly. In the middle of an election?

And we end up rushing in a light frigate, something that sits between ANZAC's and Hunter. The time frame is a killer. The UK Is hoping to have them by 2027, and they are already 6 months after cutting steel.

As identified by most, the Arfura's aren't going anywhere, and if money can only be saved if you sell them off, or build less hunters etc.

It also doesn't resolve the issue that we are going to lose basically all our Destroyers between the period 2025-2030 as they go in for upgrades. All we will basically have is a couple of Anzacs for the RAN.

IMO we should be building Flight III Burkes or similar, not A140's. While crewing is an issue, offering ~150-300 US experienced burke sailors offers they can't refuse is a real possibility. Plus as the US destroyer fleet MASSIVELY contracts, in a way not seen in 70+ years, sailors, will have few career options.

We also have to address how we are going to increase ADF numbers knowing that the pipelines are underfunded and retention makes growth very hard.

 

[ddxx]

I like the A140 design, but its not in service in the RAN.

A A140 competitor like Sachsen Class frigate (76mm, 32vls, 2 x RAM launchers, 2 helos or the F-125 class) or the F110 class, (5", 16VLS room for more, 1 helo). Or the Constellation class/FREMM.

Then you need suppliers and sustainment, again, for a whole new type and configuration and prime. I know back office contract adminstration and supply and sustainment isn't as sexy as giant arcs of sparks from welders, but its more important, one can't happen without the other.

So even if you captain call it, and spend all your political capital on not nominating requirements, but just putting forward a design/platform/configuration. You will still need suppliers. You can't just snap your fingers for these to exist and the companies behind them. Particularly if you are building here. Then you have to force the other party to agree with you bipartisanly. In the middle of an election?

And we end up rushing in a light frigate, something that sits between ANZAC's and Hunter. The time frame is a killer. The UK Is hoping to have them by 2027, and they are already 6 months after cutting steel.

As identified by most, the Arfura's aren't going anywhere, and if money can only be saved if you sell them off, or build less hunters etc.

It also doesn't resolve the issue that we are going to lose basically all our Destroyers between the period 2025-2030 as they go in for upgrades. All we will basically have is a couple of Anzacs for the RAN.

IMO we should be building Flight III Burkes or similar, not A140's. While crewing is an issue, offering ~150-300 US experienced burke sailors offers they can't refuse is a real possibility. Plus as the US destroyer fleet MASSIVELY contracts, in a way not seen in 70+ years, sailors, will have few career options.

We also have to address how we are going to increase ADF numbers knowing that the pipelines are underfunded and retention makes growth very hard.

On your primary note, the difference is that Babcock already has a substantial presence in the Australian market. They’re well aware of both the desires, needs, and limitations, yet they continue to spend money locally on promoting the design for build and sustainment. (I’ve linked to such examples previously)

Yes, some additional large surface combatants with substantial magazine depth would be great - I’d argue you’d be better off exploring the hull plug path for the already in process Hunters. They have the length and beam.

Said GP Frigates are about maintaining the constant and visible presence throughout our wider region which is crucial to Shape, Deter and Respond.

 

[Stampede]

Realistically, we do not. Short of a major, international war breaking out, which would justify both a massive increase in defence funding, a wartime /command economy, and widespread conscription, there is not a great deal more that could be done and take effect this decade.

Kit would need to be selected which meets a variety of Australian requirements. Personnel would need to be recruited and trained up in order to crew new assets. All of this takes time.

Yep it's a perplexing situation.
On the one hand you have recognition by government of a rapidly changing world.
Threat time tables greatly reduced, Sabre rattling in Northern Asia and large scale active combat in Eastern Europe.
On the other hand we have a lot of talk about increased defence expenditure which seemingly does not fit the acknowledged threat time table.

What to do. Firstly make a decision.
Do we have an immediate threat or not!
If yes, we need to actively address this as best we can.

If yes, money will be found.
The challenges of building ships and training crew will not go away but will be tackled differently than if we go with the status quo.
Ships can be built overseas in parallel to existing scheduled domestic construction.
Recruiting can be enlarged, retention rates given priority and international sailors press ganged ( sourced ).
Priority also to the small stuff.
Any vessel that is deficient in weapons and systems should have this addressed within the practicality of design
Small boats, UAV's, landing craft, MCM systems, anything small or modular make a call and procure.
Shore fleet base infrastructure. Any deficiency then address within the realm of practicality for the time frame considered.
Much can still be achieved within a short period of time if deemed necessary.


Whoever forms government in a couple of month's will again need to ask the question

Do we have an immediate threat or not.


Regards S

 

[RJB2022]

Bet

Better send your plan to Min Def pronto.

Iver Huitfeldt frigate already put a design in for our ANZAC frigate replacement with Ceafar radar years ago.. I never understood why we did not choose it then instead of maxing out our ANZAC frigate tonnage with AMCAP.. Then we have our Hunter class with the original Global Combat Ship design that had 72 VLS which would of made a good design for our next generation AWD replacement.. Same goes for why we did not build more AWD's and Collins to allow for rotational maintenance and upgrades.. They also have the Navantia Avante 2400 corvette that would of been a better option with less draft than our Arafura OPV's.. It's almost like common sense is non existance followed by not learning from previous mistakes when it comes to Canberra decision making..

 

[Volkodav]

You could probably fit the Vampire with CEAFAR-2, Aegis and 32 Mk 41 VLS Cells as well

The plywood in its airframe and the centrifugal jet would reduce its RCS. Personally I want to shoehorn a Mk-41 VLS into B position on HMAS Vampire

 

[RJB2022]

Never assume, group think in large organisations is a constant battle to overcome.

The B-21 push does my head in. As if Australia needs another ‘invisible’ high end platform when we have such a lack of visible power projection assets.

Exactly i am in the boat we definitely do not need the B-21, we have everything we already need in the Boeing ATS loyal wingman without the massive price tag from B-21.. All they need to do is continue with the upscaling process for a larger variant that can fill the long range bomber role and old f-111C capability we lost with the F-111C range and payload also able to use the same production line as the Boeing ATS loyal wingman.. They could even add sonar buoy launch system to make it a submarine hunting maritime bomber with the current EW from the Boeing ATS loyal wingman..

 

[Volkodav]

I like the A140 design, but its not in service in the RAN.

A A140 competitor like Sachsen Class frigate (76mm, 32vls, 2 x RAM launchers, 2 helos or the F-125 class) or the F110 class, (5", 16VLS room for more, 1 helo). Or the Constellation class/FREMM.

Then you need suppliers and sustainment, again, for a whole new type and configuration and prime. I know back office contract adminstration and supply and sustainment isn't as sexy as giant arcs of sparks from welders, but its more important, one can't happen without the other.

So even if you captain call it, and spend all your political capital on not nominating requirements, but just putting forward a design/platform/configuration. You will still need suppliers. You can't just snap your fingers for these to exist and the companies behind them. Particularly if you are building here. Then you have to force the other party to agree with you bipartisanly. In the middle of an election?

And we end up rushing in a light frigate, something that sits between ANZAC's and Hunter. The time frame is a killer. The UK Is hoping to have them by 2027, and they are already 6 months after cutting steel.

As identified by most, the Arfura's aren't going anywhere, and if money can only be saved if you sell them off, or build less hunters etc.

It also doesn't resolve the issue that we are going to lose basically all our Destroyers between the period 2025-2030 as they go in for upgrades. All we will basically have is a couple of Anzacs for the RAN.

IMO we should be building Flight III Burkes or similar, not A140's. While crewing is an issue, offering ~150-300 US experienced burke sailors offers they can't refuse is a real possibility. Plus as the US destroyer fleet MASSIVELY contracts, in a way not seen in 70+ years, sailors, will have few career options.

We also have to address how we are going to increase ADF numbers knowing that the pipelines are underfunded and retention makes growth very hard.

Ironically all those things are why I like the Arrowhead.

It already has a number of common systems with the Type 26 and the design is sufficiently modular and flexible enough to incorporate other systems already used, or planned to be used, by the RAN.

The RAN is already using the same core SAAB combat system across multiple platforms. MTU diesels would be a no brainer, sonars, radars, coms, electrical switch boards could all be selected based on what is currently in service or planned to enter service.

Steel is cheap and air is free, the A140 is larger and far more spacious than the ANZAC, with a core crew little larger than an Arafura. It could, likely more easily than most other designs, be configured in such a way as to hook into many existing supply chains within the ADFs existing support systems.

 

[RJB2022]

Getting a new ship specified, designed, selected, built and in-service by 2030 would be a huge ask.

The UK started the Type31 program back in 2017 which grew out of the earlier GPFF 2015. The RN expects the initial service date for the first ship in 2027. The Type 31 as a 57mm gun, 2 x 40mm, 24 CAMM, and UK systems and sensors.

Even bypassing any selection process (which would basically be impossible), the ship currently built uses systems and weapons the RAN does not operate or support. Changing that would take time (like the Hunters). You would also have to acquire those, or replace those. Where would the ships be built? Which yard? How busy is that yard? If there is no yard in Australia and you want them built in the UK you would be waiting for the UK orders to be completed before starting.

There is no magic genie here. Its not just fantasy fleets, its magical wishing fantasy fleets. Theoretical designs that fall out of the air, designed by genies, built by genies, in magical genie shipyards, crewed by said genies, with deadlines even genies would struggle with. We use all our genie wishes, all to get us some light frigate power approximate to an existing Anzac(type 31e) or less than a Hunter(going back to the IH OMT parent and modifying), either way something we actually have a large number of.

Of course if you up gun it, put on all the VLS, you have now built a less capable Hobart class, without Aegis, without SPY, without those things the RAN probably wants and needs. Similar size, of a ship we already own and operate and has a clear mission for.

I understand how we got here, the A140 design is a nice design. As is the parent Iver Huitfeldt design. But that doesn't mean its do-able in the timeframe or gains the RAN or the ADF what it needs.

Even worse, the OMT IH design has been reviewed by the Gov/DMO/RAN as part of Sea5000. Its been looked at, and rejected. We are covering ground previously covered by existing programs and rejected. It wasn't shortlisted.



This. <10 years we are basically stuck with what we have today. Not just ships, but basically everything. We will be lucky to see the fruits of existing programs already well underway. Not only that, all our existing old gear will be another 10 years older. Anything that was difficult to support in peacetime will be completely inoperative with war time logistics, priorities and tempos.

Often people assume the initial conflict is what we are preparing for. There is will also be a period after the conflict. Say war breaks out over Taiwan, taiwan is bombed to dresden levels, its out of the picture either way, but it all happens very quickly, there is no invasion just a lot of fighting. The US, SK, JP and China all suffer significant loses very quickly. Say the US wins, but now has a navy/AF that is 50% smaller. JP, SK, China are even worse off, with very high levels of casualties.

What does that mean for global security over the next ~20 years after the conflict?

The US would then frantically be focused on getting it back together. If you don't make it yourself you are going to be at the back of a very long line. Building anything, even here could be quite problematic. Forget combat systems and missiles. Everything will be problematic, laptops, radios, phones, etc. Meanwhile threats and fears will significant increase globally, for everyone.

Iver Huitfeldt did put a design in for our ANZAC frigate replacement years ago with our CEAFAR radars currently for our AMCAP ANZAC's.. it would be worth digging up just to see.. type 31 is good and all but it's just the common variant atm everyone refers to because UK design of building it in 12 months with a small crew, the stern dock mission bay is a handy addition too.. potentially they could use the old Iver Huitfeldt design in for our ANZAC frigate replacement and cut it back for a faster build time similar to what UK did with their Type 31 then pair them up with our ANZAC frigates as the additional munitions with 32 or upwards of 48 Vls when replacing the CIWS millennial gun with VLS.. i do not know exactly how far they got into the desing but they did put a bid in an dlost to the type 26 frigate, i would assume they did a design based on our ANZAC frigates system setup in the Iver Huitfeldt hull..

 

[Volkodav]

Iver Huitfeldt did put a design in for our ANZAC frigate replacement years ago with our CEAFAR radars currently for our AMCAP ANZAC's.. it would be worth digging up just to see.. type 31 is good and all but it's just the common variant atm everyone refers to because UK design of building it in 12 months with a small crew, the stern dock mission bay is a handy addition too.. potentially they could use the old Iver Huitfeldt design in for our ANZAC frigate replacement and cut it back for a faster build time similar to what UK did with their Type 31 then pair them up with our ANZAC frigates as the additional munitions with 32 or upwards of 48 Vls when replacing the CIWS millennial gun with VLS.. i do not know exactly how far they got into the desing but they did put a bid in an dlost to the type 26 frigate, i would assume they did a design based on our ANZAC frigates system setup in the Iver Huitfeldt hull..

That would be interesting to see.

I see the A140 and derivatives as what the LCS should have been, i.e. a flexible frigate.

Thinking on it, maybe and older term could better describe what it offers, Sloop.

 

[RJB2022]

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.
[/QU

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 wouldn't say canceling the Arafura just transfering them elsewhere, they will end up filling roles from other vessels getting refits for the next decade the vessel is not suited for it... Have you seen the new CIVMEC shed here in WA at Henderson smartarse..!!! You can build 2 frigates or AWD's at a time in it yet we are building OPV's.. Surely somewhere else in Aus has the capability to build OPV's like Vic, NSW or even QLD, then transfer them to the ABFC and open reservist recruiting to fill them..

 

[RJB2022]

That would be interesting to see.

I see the A140 and derivatives as what the LCS should have been, i.e. a flexible frigate.

Thinking on it, maybe and older term could better describe what it offers, Sloop.

I'll try and dig up more later but here an old ASPI article from 2015.. was not long after that i seen that both Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and Navantia also FREMM did SEA 5000 designs with our CEAFAR radars and systems.. they both looked good i always wondered why we were overloading our ANZAC frigates when we had better offers on hulls with more tonnage.. Basically up gunned variants of our ANZAC frigates with more space and tonnage which could be scaled back to fill the multi role frigate role along side our ANZAC frigates similar to UK concept of the Type 31..

Sea State: future frigate contenders II | The Strategist

With ASPI’s Future Surface Fleet conference now less than a week away, Sea State this week will continue last week’s examination of design options for the future frigate fleet. We’ll also take a look at ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Morgo]

Ok. So if you’re saying that we should have the OPVs AND another class, that’s different.

As you rightly point out the issue is one of capacity. Having a big shed does not give you capability to build two AWDs at once, and all of the capacity that is there is spoken for for many years.

As for the rest of the country as far as I know they’re tapped out. Rightly or wrongly there is now no meaningful shipbuilding activity in our two major economic centres (which have a combined GDP of close to a trillion dollars). This has been because of concentration in effort for the shipbuilding plan (a good idea in peacetime) and SA / WA pork barrelling (a less good idea).

So I think the better question is that given a deteriorating security environment and the likelihood of a severe economic correction on the horizon as interest rates and commodity prices rise how can we bring Sydney and Melbourne into supply chains? And what cost does this carry to the sustainability of the current shipbuilding plan?

 

[Redlands18]

I'll try and dig up more later but here an old ASPI article from 2015.. was not long after that i seen that both Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and Navantia also FREMM did SEA 5000 designs with our CEAFAR radars and systems.. they both looked good i always wondered why we were overloading our ANZAC frigates when we had better offers on hulls with more tonnage.. Basically up gunned variants of our ANZAC frigates with more space and tonnage which could be scaled back to fill the multi role frigate role along side our ANZAC frigates similar to UK concept of the Type 31..

Sea State: future frigate contenders II | The Strategist

With ASPI’s Future Surface Fleet conference now less than a week away, Sea State this week will continue last week’s examination of design options for the future frigate fleet. We’ll also take a look at ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

The final shortlist for Sea 5000 was Navantia with the F-5000(based on the Hobart but with some changes including a larger Hangar), The Italian version of the FREMM and the Type 26. All of which are considerably larger then the Iver Huitfeldt, up to 10m longer and 2000t greater displacement

 

[Volkodav]

I'll try and dig up more later but here an old ASPI article from 2015.. was not long after that i seen that both Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate and Navantia also FREMM did SEA 5000 designs with our CEAFAR radars and systems.. they both looked good i always wondered why we were overloading our ANZAC frigates when we had better offers on hulls with more tonnage.. Basically up gunned variants of our ANZAC frigates with more space and tonnage which could be scaled back to fill the multi role frigate role along side our ANZAC frigates similar to UK concept of the Type 31..

Sea State: future frigate contenders II | The Strategist

With ASPI’s Future Surface Fleet conference now less than a week away, Sea State this week will continue last week’s examination of design options for the future frigate fleet. We’ll also take a look at ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Interesting, thankyou.

On review it's clear the design was not suited to the requirement, i.e. AWD like capability with enhanced ASW capability.

The irony is Navantia was quite keen to modify the AWD design to incorporate greater ASW capability, a second helicopter and even extra VLS to better meet RAN requirements but the bastardised revision of Kinard being used at the time, restricted the offer to a minimum change F-104 baseline, not even the F-105.

Had our procurement rules been less restrictive the Hobart's could have been built to a more versatile baseline that would have been worth building in greater numbers.

This would have permitted the ANZAC replacement to be a more GP type that didn't require AEGIS at all.

 

[swerve]

The contract for the Type 31 Program (Arrowhead 140) was only awarded and singed in late 2019 - with first steel being cut in late 2021.

It's worth noting that the whole point of the design is being space rich, super flexible, and efficient to build. According to Babcock, it's even perfectly capable of fielding the Aegis CMS if so desired. The midship VLS silo on the Arrowhead 140 is identical to the Iver, retaining the same space and depth which allows for up to 32 strike length Mk-41 cells.

These high margins in space, power, and weight allow such changes with greatly reduced impact on both cost and time.

The modular design also allows for multiple site construction of blocks, reducing the need for a large workforce at a single shipyard - Babcock makes this point specifically in their brochure linked below.

"Designed to provide maximum capability and value for money, Arrowhead 140 uses modular construction combined with proven and commercially available systems and equipment. If required, its configuration is suited to a multi-site, distributed build strategy, with final assembly centred on one site but with the potential advantage of spreading the economic benefits and supply chain opportunities throughout shipyards."

Babcock's Arrowhead 140 Brochure.

That modular design for a distributed build strategy was designed in to the Iver Huitfeldts, which were built in blocks in Estonia & Lithuania & completed at Odense. Babcock inherited it, & had the sense to keep it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Rather than whole new platforms in that timeframe we might be better off introducing weapon systems, which may allow easier implementation of platforms:

57mm gun
CAMM
NSM/JSM

• CAMM might be a replacement/supplement to Phalanx. Canada and the UK are using them on their Type 26's, and for smaller combatants they might be attractive.
• NSM would be a reasonable replacement for Harpoon on many platforms as a box launched missile (tlam and LRASM are really too big for that)
• JSM as a stealthy naval strike. Again, LRASM is a big external carry. Or perhaps Spear3.
• 57mm gun now that the 40mm is in limbo.

The Sea5000 Navantia design I heard hadn't progressed very far in terms of detail work. It might be quite a big ask to finish that work and might have significant risk. The design was significant reworked for the US FFGX bid, . It was a big contract and it was short listed. Warren King was spruking it before he retired.