Just had a thought. This means most of the existing ADF will need to combine both active service and teaching roles. 60,000 to teach 200,000+ (if scaled up for war). They'll need to be good educators as well. I'm going to guess that there's not many with actual knowledge to teach effectively?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I was thinking this too during the OPV selection. Most contenders had OPV 90 versions, which had hangers .
You can embark and operate helicopters without a hangar, as HMAS Choules regularly demonstrates, it’s just not ideal. I imagine if the lack of such ever becomes an issue, a helicopter capability might be looked at down the line as a future upgrade, assuming of course we had a suitable helicopter for a vessel not capable of ‘medium’ helicopter operations, unlikely as that may be given ADF’s current lack of priority on a light utility helicopter capability, across any service…
Not sure I follow your logic here, given how military training courses are run (well trained instructors and compressed training time frames). Having done several ADF instructor training courses myself and then done APS training there's big differences in training quality. Remember that with military courses you have (literally) a captive audience who are motivated to be there (quite often the training is linked to pay & promotion qualifications) and there are consequences (pay/career) if you fail.
I don't know why we would once again put ourselves in the same position as with the Anzacs?
Extra displacement with high weight/space/power margins is a no-brainer - especially when cost and crewing levels would likely be roughly the same.
Arrowhead's 9,000 nm range (at 18 knots), space for multiple 20ft containers for HADR, and four large mission/boat/UXV bays would be particularly useful in our region and beyond. Anything smaller simply can't tick those boxes due to pesky physics.
The range quoted in Wiki is at odds with other sources such as Navy Lookout that suggests 7000+ nm for the T31. Still a decent range, however, this is on quite a light sensor and weapons load out.
This has an impact if additional systems are retrofitted (aka … what was required with ANZAC) both in draft and stability. To get the anticipated speed the T31 will have a small water plane area to the TCP (tonnage per centimetre immersion) will be quite low. This means added weight will result in increased draft resulting in reduced range and speed (again just what was seen in the ANZAC). When looking at additional systems it is important to look at these systems and their supporting infrastructure such as power generation, associated distribution arrangements, HVAC and extra crew.
Looking at the Hunter as an example …. This is a large ship intended to long range operations. Trying to shoe horn the desired capability and growth has resulted in a 10000 tonne vessel. It will be exceptionally capable but it does provide and example of the impact of even moderate capability increases.
To add capability to the T31 will result in compromise in other areas …. Range possibly being one of them.
Finally … IMHO consideration of HADR for combat vessels (excluding the LHD’s) needs to be dropped as a reason to buy a particular hull as it has the potential to lead to compromising the prime purpose of the vessel. Choules, the AOR’s, the LHD’s and the future JSS will all have an inherent capability in this area due to their size and facilities (so too will the Arafura and future independent landing craft for local regional low key activities). For vessels intended primarily for combat the focus of the multi mission bays needs to be what it adds to the vessels combat capability in respect of boats, USV’s, UAV’s and other capability multipliers.
I have no issue with additional hulls, I more capable ‘corvette’ may be useful for escort work around Australia or in more permissive environments. However, much of the cost of such vessels in the the systems and their supporting arrangement (which is much more expensive when trying to retrofit this capability). I would suggest that in the short term the Hunter is the only player in town and getting this in build as soon as practical is the first objective …. Then build more of them with a shorter drum beat. The yard is capable of building other classes if desired as it has been set up as a digital yard from the outset (a great capability for Australia)
Henderson is not yet a fully developed build site for large combat vessels. It will be a build site for future large hull vessels meaning it will have a lot of work in front of it with the OPV’s, MCM vessels as well as JSS (noting the JSS build and time frame). In addition it appears Henderson will be responsible for future replacement large vessels (such as the LHDs the AOR’s). HMAS Canberra has been in service for 12 years but was laid down in 2009 and launched in 2011) as this work will need to commence in the next decade if new vessels are going to be available when the current vessels hit 25+ years old. Same is true for the AOR’s further down the track (and additional AOR would be nice).
Osborne yard exists and is designed to deliver frigates, destroyers and (soon) Submarines to the RAN. That ….. IMHO …. Is where teh build should stay given production is about to start.
Just a final observation, given the proliferation of large support vessels and other vessel such as ADV Protector (and its replacement) there would appear to be a case for an Australian RFA. Choules, the AOR’s, Protector (replacement) and the JSS could run with a civilian core crew (as is the case with the RFA) which may alleviate some of the manning and training issues. There are a number of commercial support vessels (in additionto Protector) currently operated by civilian crew. This includes the MATV and two Submarine rescue vessels so there would certainly be critical mass if these were combined.
This has an impact if additional systems are retrofitted (aka … what was required with ANZAC) both in draft and stability. To get the anticipated speed the T31 will have a small water plane area to the TCP (tonnage per centimetre immersion) will be quite low. This means added weight will result in increased draft resulting in reduced range and speed (again just what was seen in the ANZAC). When looking at additional systems it is important to look at these systems and their supporting infrastructure such as power generation, associated distribution arrangements, HVAC and extra crew.
Looking at the Hunter as an example …. This is a large ship intended to long range operations. Trying to shoe horn the desired capability and growth has resulted in a 10000 tonne vessel. It will be exceptionally capable but it does provide and example of the impact of even moderate capability increases.
To add capability to the T31 will result in compromise in other areas …. Range possibly being one of them.
Finally … IMHO consideration of HADR for combat vessels (excluding the LHD’s) needs to be dropped as a reason to buy a particular hull as it has the potential to lead to compromising the prime purpose of the vessel. Choules, the AOR’s, the LHD’s and the future JSS will all have an inherent capability in this area due to their size and facilities (so too will the Arafura and future independent landing craft for local regional low key activities). For vessels intended primarily for combat the focus of the multi mission bays needs to be what it adds to the vessels combat capability in respect of boats, USV’s, UAV’s and other capability multipliers.
I have no issue with additional hulls, I more capable ‘corvette’ may be useful for escort work around Australia or in more permissive environments. However, much of the cost of such vessels in the the systems and their supporting arrangement (which is much more expensive when trying to retrofit this capability). I would suggest that in the short term the Hunter is the only player in town and getting this in build as soon as practical is the first objective …. Then build more of them with a shorter drum beat. The yard is capable of building other classes if desired as it has been set up as a digital yard from the outset (a great capability for Australia)
Henderson is not yet a fully developed build site for large combat vessels. It will be a build site for future large hull vessels meaning it will have a lot of work in front of it with the OPV’s, MCM vessels as well as JSS (noting the JSS build and time frame). In addition it appears Henderson will be responsible for future replacement large vessels (such as the LHDs the AOR’s). HMAS Canberra has been in service for 12 years but was laid down in 2009 and launched in 2011) as this work will need to commence in the next decade if new vessels are going to be available when the current vessels hit 25+ years old. Same is true for the AOR’s further down the track (and additional AOR would be nice).
Osborne yard exists and is designed to deliver frigates, destroyers and (soon) Submarines to the RAN. That ….. IMHO …. Is where teh build should stay given production is about to start.
Just a final observation, given the proliferation of large support vessels and other vessel such as ADV Protector (and its replacement) there would appear to be a case for an Australian RFA. Choules, the AOR’s, Protector (replacement) and the JSS could run with a civilian core crew (as is the case with the RFA) which may alleviate some of the manning and training issues. There are a number of commercial support vessels (in additionto Protector) currently operated by civilian crew. This includes the MATV and two Submarine rescue vessels so there would certainly be critical mass if these were combined.
Slap me later but you are forgetting Vengence and Duchess. Vengence was returned when Melbourne was delivered but Duchess served out her days with RAN.
Just a quick thought. Given a US Admiral told congress war with China is more likely in the 2020's. Given Russia recent aggression. The talk about patrol frigates in this decade is optimistic. I agree with forum planning, designing, building and crewing takes time and resources. Fat lot of good it will do if in the 2020's everything hits the fan.
For the immediate future we would need to either beef up existing assets or build more/faster what is in the pipeline. I would suggest drones, a faster Hunter timeline, possible buy/lease a nuclear submarine, more Arafura, better weapons / missiles. Before I am shot down I am not a expert by any measure. All I know is that world is going pear shaped. I would be interested in the opinion of others.
Just my 2 cents
DD
Edit pressed send button to soon
For the immediate future we would need to either beef up existing assets or build more/faster what is in the pipeline. I would suggest drones, a faster Hunter timeline, possible buy/lease a nuclear submarine, more Arafura, better weapons / missiles. Before I am shot down I am not a expert by any measure. All I know is that world is going pear shaped. I would be interested in the opinion of others.
Just my 2 cents
DD
Edit pressed send button to soon
Last edited:
Spot on.
I like corvette but when you look at the costs of the systems it isn't that much more to go for a patrol frigate. Take it a step futher, the OPVs are a quantum leap over the Armidales, but when we start talking about arming them, or even making them more survivable to be worth arming them, something like the USCG Legend Class high endurance cutters start looking more affordable.
I think we need to move away from a sort of thinking that still is quite prevalent, i.e. small is cheaper and light, means lower operating costs. This only works if nothing changes, i.e. you build it, use it and when things change or it needs an upgrade, dispose of it and replace it. One of the problems with the Armidales is they were designed for a price, not a unit price, but a provision of service price that incorporated maintenance and support costs, even the training of crews was part of the contract. The second things changed from what was anticipated they were in trouble (well there were design issues as well but that a different matter).
If you want a capability to remain relevant over 30 years, you need to design it in such a way that it is structurally capable of doing so and potentially ballasted by either actual ballast, or systems you fully intend to remove and replace with other systems, in the future. The other option is to assume a service life of less than twenty years and no major upgrades or changes.
I am happy to be corrected if wrong but my understanding of the Stanflex system is the modules not only have identical dimensions and interfaces, they also have the same designed all up or equipped weight. I may be wrong on that and ballasting my be required as well. This is one of the things that attracts me to the Danish designs (hopefully the Arrowheads retain the facility to include module slots). The Danes have also refitted module slots in a number of legacy designs, raising the possibility that if we adopted, modified or even came up with our own version of this system, we could introduce even greater flexibility to the fleet.
Imagine a future fleet with PBs, OPVs, patrol frigates that are perhaps more robust and larger than they technically need too be, fitted with modules configured for storage, HADR, pollution response etc. Maybe piracy becomes an issue and modules with cranes and extra spares for additional RHIBs or even interceptors or USVs. Possibly China starts deploying into our region much more extensively and begins firing on shipping as has occurred further north. The PBs can morph into FACs, the OPVs into Corvettes and the patrol Frigates in to GP frigates.
Where do these other modules come from, well we build them locally, perhaps we also use them for secondary capabilities on MFUs. Common CIWS or PDMS modules would make sense for majors and fat ships. There are also MCM, hydro of course and the possibility or not just storing the surplus modules but installing them at current fleet and re-establish reserve bases to train operators and maintainers.
HADR is something that comes up often, as is MCM, hydro not so much, but still critical. If we look at covering much of our needs in these areas with common modules that can be easily fitted to most ships in the fleet, this gives further justification for a larger, more robust and capable patrol vessel. The US tried to go down that path with the LCS but appear to have messed up the platforms and then not adequately developed the modules that were the entire reason for going that way in the first place. I can see a place for not just a common core combat system interface, but also for modular systems that can be change out as required. This flexibility and future proofing alone can justify using a frigate platform for EEZ constabulary roles.
The problem is 2020's is too soon. Most predictions, were in the 2025-2030 region. Because that is when a confluence of internal issues, within China will apply pressure. All we can aim for is perhaps early 2030's.
There is very little that can be completed from scratch in that timeframe of 0-5 years. Maybe some acquisition of some weapons in small numbers, but basically no additional platforms, particularly nothing that isn't already in service and FOC. Retro fitting gear involved removing already deployable warships, from the water. Even things like MOTS items, coming off production lines, like planes and missiles would struggle to meet a 5 year FOC date. Many items are backordered on longer production runs. Drones, for all their amazingness, don't typically have much shorter development and acquisition timeframes, and a fraught with new issues.
Leasing is basically impossible. Particularly from the US, they already have identified they are critical short supply of equipment and are desperately trying to reverse decommissioning's. Mostly with little success. These ships/boats/planes have served full lives and have often already skipped last upgrades and life extensions. Combined with heavy than expected deployments and usage, the US has its own issues with these older platforms just keeping them operational for their existing timeframes.
There is no longer a large pool of ex-cold war equipment that had short easy lives that can be pushed into service. Or a large pool of decommissioned equipment to support fast recommissioning. There are generational transfers as well. As the cruisers, flight i burkes, and the LA boats fade away.
We are not well prepared for a war against a near peer. We are not well prepared for a high intensity war. We have a patrol and presence navy. Small ships with good radars and lightly defensively armed. These platforms are already, maxed out with no growth room. They were designed to contribute to an already strong allied fleet with more capable combatants or operate in peace time. We expect any major threat, to be backed up by the US sending a cruiser to lead, like in East Timor. We know that is no longer going to be possible. The US won't have any cruisers in this period, and will have decommissioned much of its destroyer force. Its sub forces is already struggling to meet its missions and its squeezed its builders to deliver more faster.
That is a longer term issue. Beyond any conflict. We shouldn't just be focused on short term attempted solutions.
Given the Arrowhead 140 has the same propulsion system as the Iver Huitfeldt it's based upon - OMT quoted endurance is 9,300 nm at 18 knots.
Navy Lookout's piece on the Type 31s propulsion system quotes this range too.
I'd imagine this needs to be looked at as part of the overall diplomatic and security picture.
One of the selling points of having a constant patrol frigate presence throughout the region is that in the case of a disaster they can be the first responder until a dedicated task group arrives.
This capability to provide 'first response' HADR also helps in assuring their presence is looked on favourably by our neighbours.
Modules isn't a silly idea and if you went down that path, ideally they should be based on the standard ISO 20 ft TEU and 10ft container footprint, twist locks and all. That way they can be utilised ashore on backs of trucks if need be and also makes for ease of transport between ship and storage / maintenance area.
Depends on the source, I agree both figures are in Navy Lookout depending on the date. Different figures are floating about for instance
Royal Navy’s Type 31 Arrowhead 140 Frigate – Global Defense Corp
Gives 9000nm at 12 knots .... this suggest an 18 knot sustained speed will reduce your range.
Added to that the MTU's are 'near identical V20/8000M70 engines' to the units fitted to the Iver.
Rolls Royce MTU engines selected for the Type 31 frigate | Navy Lookout
They are not the 'same engine' noting many Navy's are comply with MARPOL Annex VI in relation to air pollution . Burning Marine Diesel or 'gas oil' these engines should have no issue with SOx but they will have to comply with NOx limits that are more stringent than the engines in the Iver as they (given the keel laid date these could have got away with Tier I) will have to comply with Tier III requirements for NOx.
7 Ways For Ships To Meet MARPOL NOx Tier III Regulation (marineinsight.com)
I expect the engine on offer will be the 20V/80000M71 engine (noting this is only Tier II complaint so it may be a different variant to that if tier III is going to be applied) This does have an impact on the engines. They may still be as efficient but they are not the same engine. The M71 comes in two power ratings. The M71L offers a higher power rating will give you a better top speed but uses a little over 10% more fuel and max sustainable power.
3231631_Marine_Navy_spec_20V8000M71-L_1B_1.pdf (mtu-solutions.com)
There is also the M71R but that is a lower power than either the M71 or M71L.
Is there an argument that to address some of the shortfalls in fleet numbers extra Poseidon aircraft could be considered e.g. a much shorter timeline for procurement able to be at specific areas of contention quicker, no disruption to present shipbuilding schedules,
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I personally do not think so, as the capabilities and roles a P-8 can cover are a bit different, with MPA and surface escorts being more complementary assets. Having said that, I would not have an issue with more being acquired provided it is not at the expense of other needed capabilities.
If the vessel were to aquired that was approx the same weight, cost, complexity and crewing as the Hunter, then just get more Hunters.
Was thinking more as a stop-gap to increase basic fleet numbers and partly cover for the majors in planned upgrades.
A vessel that could have a short 15 - 20 year life then sold on as more Hunters come online.
A quick look at something like BMTs Venator 110 show a light GP Frigate with a crew of 85 that at max capacity would be equilivent to the current Anzacs. But much younger and with lesser crewing demands. Thus for the same crew levels as 8 Anzacs you could crew 12-13 Venators.
A patrol version of the Venator (fitted for but not with) would require even less crew and could be built in place of the later Arafuras. Giving greater overall capacity in the long run.
BMT states that the Venator is designed for block construction if it is neccesary to split the build between different yards.
This may aid in preventing disruption of current programs by bringing additional yards.
Last edited:
That’s very interesting - any potential variation would still result in a very high endurance vessel.
I’m curious as to your thoughts on the power arrangement for the Arafura Class - as on face value at least, even though it’s a substantially larger vessel quoted range at cruise (unknown speed) is the same as a Cape Class, but with a substantially lower maximum speed? Some sources quote unknown cruise speed at 12 knots, the same as the Cape Class with identical endurance - yet the Capes and Armidales have a max speed of ~25 knots.
On face value at least, this seems to be a downgrade? One would hope a substantially larger vessel would at least be able to meet the endurance and speed specs of its predecessors?
Consider yourself slapped!Slap me later but you are forgetting Vengence and Duchess. Vengence was returned when Melbourne was delivered but Duchess served out her days with RAN.
(“Ducky” = Duchess, nickname she was known by. As opposed to the fluffy duck, always in full, Swan)
You could make an argument about the Tons I suppose but they are hardly MSC
Last edited:
The point is internal volume, sea keeping, and sustained sea speed in realistic conditions, not a couple of knots of sprint speed in sea state zero. They carry 11 metre RICs capable of something like 35 knots (again in benign condition) if they need that.
I think the point above is that a chopper is at hand and onboard when required. If the chopper has to Lilly pad from another vessel, assuming it is within range it doesn’t really help in an emergency situation. The idea of having a chopper on board has merit and really does broaden the patrol capability and range.