Bet
Better send your plan to Min Def pronto.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
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
Well-Known Member
You could probably fit the Vampire with CEAFAR-2, Aegis and 32 Mk 41 VLS Cells as well
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
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..
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 VampireYou could probably fit the Vampire with CEAFAR-2, Aegis and 32 Mk 41 VLS Cells as well
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..
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.
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.
Last edited:
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
Last edited:
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?
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
Well-Known Member
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 displacementI'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 ...
Interesting, thankyou.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 ...
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.
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.
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
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.