JulioCompactus
Member
the younger flight 1 are the same age as ANZAC and it is important to note that the surface fleet looks after its ships a lot better than the gator navy
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
The RAN was burned badly by the LPAs so there would be significant caution in looking at more 2nd hand USN ships. And you only have to do a cursory image search of the flight 1 ABs to see how completely run into the ground they were. I think it would be hard pass from Fleet.
Operational cost (including crewing cost) is one of the key supporting reasons as to why both I and others support a ‘GP Frigate’ being built simultaneously with Hunter ASAP and most likely at Henderson.
The ANZACs already absorb a huge amount of fleet sustainment costs - and that’s only going to grow as they age.
The fact is, there’s multiple ship designs in the market which can provide more capability than the current Anzacs with both lower sustainment costs and far less core crew.
The ANZACs already absorb a huge amount of fleet sustainment costs - and that’s only going to grow as they age.
The fact is, there’s multiple ship designs in the market which can provide more capability than the current Anzacs with both lower sustainment costs and far less core crew.
JulioCompactus
Member
you are right but that option will take many years - probably longer than the AWD upgrade unless you build overseas which isn't a realistic option. The sad fact is the ONLY option to quickly supplement the surface fleet with useful capability is 2nd hand ships preferably from a nation that uses common systems.
We don't need new build frigates just to cover for the delays in the Hunter program. I think there will eventually be a need for GP frigates to deal with increased incursions by China into our territorial waters. The currently planned twelve frigate/destroyer and 12 OPV fleet probably won't cut it.
I think it is safe to assume that when the time comes to replace the Arafura it will be with a larger more capable ship. Originally I would have expected this to happen in the 2040s but as the strategic environment continues to deteriorate that may have to be bought forward. As things stand it looks like we will eventually build around 20 Arafuras, assuming that the basic hull will be used for the planned fleet of mine countermeasures and hydrographic survey vessels.
An alternate plan I would put forward would be to limit the Arafura build to its originally planned 12 vessels and transfer the majority of those ships to the MCM and survey roles. I would then look introducing a new class of patrol frigate from the early 2030s.
Anyway that's my 2 cents worth.
I think it is safe to assume that when the time comes to replace the Arafura it will be with a larger more capable ship. Originally I would have expected this to happen in the 2040s but as the strategic environment continues to deteriorate that may have to be bought forward. As things stand it looks like we will eventually build around 20 Arafuras, assuming that the basic hull will be used for the planned fleet of mine countermeasures and hydrographic survey vessels.
An alternate plan I would put forward would be to limit the Arafura build to its originally planned 12 vessels and transfer the majority of those ships to the MCM and survey roles. I would then look introducing a new class of patrol frigate from the early 2030s.
Anyway that's my 2 cents worth.
WaveWalker
Member
I’m not saying I have anything. I’m saying it is entirely reasonable to have more than one passport and not have nefarious motives.
If you want to talk about the nature of citizenship I don’t think Australian citizenship is a good one to reference given Australia denied its citizens entry back into their country for a considerable period recently. What rights do Australian citizens have exactly?
I’ll leave it at that.
You do not need frigates to police Indonesians fishing of Ashmore reef, which they are quite entitled to do under conditions which have to be enforced, Nor to stop SIEVs off Christmas Island. In fact using them for that is a positive waste. And to cover that vast area from east of the Torres Strait to south of the Cocos we need at least 12 hulls. That is what the Arafuras are for. Sure they have other potential uses, but that is why we are building them.
If the country decides it needs more combatants then it needs to build those, but not at the expense of the Arafuras. And you will have to build them, either in Aust or overseas; no second hand ships likely to be on the market would be acceptable to the RAN as combatants - none of the LPAs, Choules, Westralia or JB are/were combatants. Last time we took over second hand combatants was the Qs in 1945, and we had been manning some of them from new (stand fast Ducky, and that was an exceptional reason; and even then she only lasted 7 years on the front line).
Minimum for the RAN would be 9LV, preferably with AEGIS, APAR, HMS and also TAS if possible, common EW and comms; and at least an MCG, probably 32 tubes, helo and SLTT. Anything less would effectively just be cannon fodder in our environment. Sounds a bit like a Hunter to me. So if you want more escorts, shorten the HCF drumbeat and build more of them, don’t get exotic.
If the country decides it needs more combatants then it needs to build those, but not at the expense of the Arafuras. And you will have to build them, either in Aust or overseas; no second hand ships likely to be on the market would be acceptable to the RAN as combatants - none of the LPAs, Choules, Westralia or JB are/were combatants. Last time we took over second hand combatants was the Qs in 1945, and we had been manning some of them from new (stand fast Ducky, and that was an exceptional reason; and even then she only lasted 7 years on the front line).
Minimum for the RAN would be 9LV, preferably with AEGIS, APAR, HMS and also TAS if possible, common EW and comms; and at least an MCG, probably 32 tubes, helo and SLTT. Anything less would effectively just be cannon fodder in our environment. Sounds a bit like a Hunter to me. So if you want more escorts, shorten the HCF drumbeat and build more of them, don’t get exotic.
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
To show how old the Flt 1 Burkes are getting, since the USN laid down USS Arleigh Burke, Australia has built, commissioned, operated for over 20 years, decommissioned and sold 2 Adelaide class FFGs which are now in the 2nd year of service in the Chilean Navy.
Why? There will still be a need for border security, illegal fishing boats to chase, drug runners to intercept, idiots in leaky sailing vessels to save and probably refugees/illegal immigrants to pull out of the water. Using patrol frigates to do that would be ridiculously expensive on every level including taking too much RAN resources from elsewhere.
I'm not inclined to push all that to border force either, the least of the reasons being the role of small vessels in giving young RAN officers a first experience in independent command, and career development in other ranks.
Why we keep rehashing this is beyond me. The Arafuras are *exactly* what we wanted for the task at hand, which will still exist even if we're fighting WW3 in the Pacific.
Just not what we need for very different roles. And not "cool"....needs more guns and missiles on every flat space!
oldsig
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Just a fairly minor (IMO anyway...) quibble. If the Arafura-class OPV design had included space for a hangar and therefore permitted embarked helicopter operations, that would have improved the range and depth of overall capabilities. Yes, a flex space mission module for USA might provide extra surveillance and area sea search capabilities (like an embarked helicopter) but for SAR ops, the ability to rapidly respond via manned aviation assets could literally be the difference between life and death.
If a Mayday call came in from a vessel in distress ~100 n miles from an Arafura-class OPV, it would likely be 5+ hours before the OPV could arrive, whilst an embarked EC-135 helicopter might be able to arrive on scene in ~45 minutes.
In regards to discussion in a GP frigate and some advocating for the AH140 what are the thoughts on the Absalon class out of Denmark? If I recall on previous thread going back idk 5 years now there had been some minor discussion about it but that at the time was in reference to it as a replacement for the Anzacs. Times being what they are today compared to then would such a ship be suitable for a GP role? If memory serves a big draw back in eyes of the blue man group was the stanflex modules but looking at its potential growth margin, and that the design in particular could theoretically provide a big boost in distributed HADR while being more heavily defended and armed then the Anzacs it's got me wondering again.
The AH140 design is based on the Iver Huitfeldt Class frigate which I believe it is itself already a variant of the Absalon Class so would be better to just go AH140.
There are other similiar GP frigates that might be part of a GP frigate tender if they decide to do one. Naval Groups FDI frigate, Japans Mogami class and TKMS's offer to poland are 3 that I can think of. If the RAN decides a general GP frigate is needed and a budget is found believe there are plenty of potential options to consider and would expect it to go to tender to find the design that best suits the RANs requirements.
There are other similiar GP frigates that might be part of a GP frigate tender if they decide to do one. Naval Groups FDI frigate, Japans Mogami class and TKMS's offer to poland are 3 that I can think of. If the RAN decides a general GP frigate is needed and a budget is found believe there are plenty of potential options to consider and would expect it to go to tender to find the design that best suits the RANs requirements.
cdxbow
Well-Known Member
Good platform as a 'mothership' for unmanned platforms, a command and control ship, can host a company-sized landing force with vehicles and still do standard GP frigate duties. They would cover the loss of hulls from the Anzac/Hobart upgrades. It would have to be built overseas, but that means they will be cheaper. Build 3. They would cover the loss of hulls from the Anzac/Hobart upgrades. It's too good an idea, it'll never get legs.
I agree that there will always be a need for patrol vessels but still each and every generation of patrol vessel seems to be bigger and more capable than the previous. Now the patrol fleets biggest challenge might be fishing vessels and smugglers but by the 2030s, when the navy might only have a handful of serviceable frigates at its disposal, they might find themselves challenging Chinese warships as well.
I am not sure I would go as far as to advocate for a ship as large as the Arrowhead 140 but maybe something in the 3000 ton range with basic air defence and the potential of being fitted with more capable weapons could be the next logical progression from the Arafura.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I agree that Australia does need patrol vessels, but one also has to remember that the taskings for Australian patrol vessels has varied widely over time, as has their capabilities, or in some cases the options available in terms of capabilities.
Going back to WWII, there were the various HDML's, which were typically armed with a 20 mm Oerlikon, .303 MG's, depth charges and small arms, though it does appear that some had twin .303 machine guns and/or twin 0.50 cal. Browning machine guns, and in one case a 3-pdr gun. Not quite sure what that would have been since a 2-pdr was roughly equivalent to a 37 mm or 40 mm gun, while a 6-pdr was ~57 mm.
Now the Fremantle-class PB's were armed with a 40 mm/60 cal. Bofors in an Australian naval mounting from the 1950's IIRC, but the mounting position was AFAIK designed to be able to take a 76 mm gun. That would have enabled the FCPB's to carry out ASuW and NGFS missions, if the circumstances required the vessels to serve as actual combatants.
For EEZ/fisheries patrolling, or other constabulary duties, kit and capabilities like a main naval gun, air defence missiles, LWT's or AShM are quite literally overkill. And expensive. OTOH if a RAN vessel other than a high value asset like an AOR or sealift, or with special mission kit like an MCM vessel, were to be part of a TF, then it should have at least some of these capabilities to a degree, otherwise the vessel would be a further drain on RAN escorts. In a similar fashion, a vessel not kitted out with air defence missiles and at least some ASW & ASuW capabilities would really not be appropriately fitted out to escort other vessels in anything other than benign conditions. In fact, it would be dangerous to have such a vessel transit through a threatened or contested area by itself unescorted.
One thing I suspect has been happening is that different people have been examining their tea leaves, and keep coming to the conclusion that in the near future the RAN is going to need more actual combat capable vessels, particularly if tensions in the Asia-Pacific region manage to get any worse. This part I suspect is correct, in that the RAN is going to need more than 11 or 12 majors. Going by the Rule of Threes, a dozen majors works out to three being reliably available if/when needed, and the possibility to surge another two or three. A RAN TF based around/supporting an LHD and AOR would likely require ~3 escorts, and a second TF needed to be formed and escorted into a conflict area to relieve or reinforce ships in the first TF, that could very well require every major that the RAN could put to sea given the current size of the fleet.
With that in mind, it might be a good exercise to consider what the RAN might need in terms of both numbers, and capabilities, for future escorts. Right now, the current required minimum capabilities might be able to be met by vessels with a fitout comparable to the RNZN's upgraded ANZAC-class frigates. In the future though, such a fitout might be insufficient in a decade.
You been sniffing the coffee grinds again?
Disagree. Though the size of patrol vessels have risen, so too the size of every other class of escorts.
If we have a need to challenge warships, we need more warships, not bigger and more expensive patrol vessels. This might be an intermediate class of corvettes or light/patrol frigates as (often) postulated by @Volkodav
And separately, patrol boats/OPVs for the less warlike tasks at a cost that will allow enough hulls to do the job without thrashing hulls, machinery and crews to death
oldsig
(PS, Someone here commented many months ago on the notion that the OPVs should carry an ASW helicopter from the beginning. A friend of mine said "battlecruisers". He meant that by doing so politicians would be disinclined to spend on *real* ASW ships, and Navy would be inclined by necessity to send them in places they should not go.)
No, between glasses of Merlot. I was trying to write a bit about the Arrowhead 120 which was a design concept by Babcock prior them coming up with the Arrowhead 140. Based on the same Danish hull design has all the bells and whistles of the 140 only smaller somewhere between 3000 and 4000 tonn and a crew of about 90. A number of members have been commenting on this thread that they like the Arrowhead 140 for a patrol frigate etc, well this one would make a good light frigate or Corvette etc. By the time i had finished writing it sounded like an advert for Babcock and a fantasy fleet i so deleted it.
Now where was that glass of Merlot
arrowhead 120 - Google Search
www.google.com
Last edited by a moderator: