Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[StingrayOZ]

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not...

Not really influenced, the government is making statements ahead of the strategic review about the state of defence. Some changes will be due to underperforming projects or change in projects. I don't really think this is any thing new or particularly surprising. When you have a lot of defence spending, you have a lot of defence projects, when you have a lot of projects, yes, some of them will underperform. The previous governments going back to 1901 have had this issue. Dutton/Scomo had already axed things like Tiger, Taipans etc. That wasn't about reducing capability, but increasing capability. I think the government is trying to put out the message change is needed for good reasons.

In tomorrow’s ‘The Australian’

DSR / RAN are considering a fleet of small missile armed warships to “boost firepower” rapidly, which sounds like a death-knell for the prospect of additional AWD’s if it were chosen.

Broadly they are looking at 10-12 missile corvettes, similar to K130 but with increased missile capabilities, ala SA’AR 5 etc.

Budget is around $5b…

$5-$6b.. maybe.. And who is named in the story?

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s Marcus Hellyer said the smaller warships should be seriously considered.

“The (2020) Defence Strategic Update said we need greater lethality and we need it quickly,” he said.

“Up-gunning the OPV is the fastest and most cost-effective way to do that.

“It will deliver a real maritime capability boost years before the first Hunter-class frigate arrives.”

He said if the government wanted fill the capability gap before Australia’s nuclear submarines arrived, then “we also need to consider long-range strike options like the US Air Force’s B-21 bomber”.

So corvettes and B21s! It article does go on to say it would not replace the Hunter class but augment them.

We have had the discussion about corvettes before, about limitations in missile loadouts and range and endurance. I note the K130 has a 7 day endurance. Armed with 4 x RBS-15. Such ships have limited radar, larger long range munitions, and limited networking capability. First of these mighty combat ships, would be delivered by, possibly, maybe, by 2028. At which point we can look at then building a crew, and crewing them. With either the German navy (K130) or Bulgarian navy (C90). The German Navy is expecting the batch II of the K130 in 2023, construction started in 2019.

So acquisition of this type of ship would mean completely abandoning our allies and going back to a fortress Australia position.

The proposed corvettes would complement, not replace, the $45bn plan to build nine of the much larger Hunter-Class frigates, which will enter service from the early-2030s.

They are considered a more likely option than building three additional air warfare destroyers, which Spanish shipbuilder Navantia has proposed in an unsolicited plan it says would cost about $6bn.

Some industry sources dispute the forecast cost of the 7000t AWDs, and warn that building them in Australia would sap the Hunter-class frigate program of skilled workers.

So 3 destroyers shared build between Spain and Australia will deplete the workforce and bring an end to life, but 12 corvettes built in Henderson will be easy. Well luckily the Spanish said they could build them all in Spain. I note that the K130 are expected to cost ~$550 million aud in 2017 dollars, and the first ship of the new batch II is not yet completed.

I don't hate corvettes, there might even be a role for them in the RAN, and maybe this is the sort of ship we should be building more of. But I'm not sure ditching 3 Aegis destroyers (spy6, BMD, 48VLS with SM-6, Sm-3, LRASM, ASROC, ESSM II, 12xNSM, 6 x torpedo's, MH60R, towed arrays) of a class we have for a new class of 3 light corvettes (by 2030, with 4 light short ranged missiles and a self defence system) is the answer to the challenges facing Australia right now.

 

[WaveWalker]

How do you work out that replacing the inadequate OPV’s with a vessel of greater capability would mean “completely abandoning our Allies and going back to fortress Australia? It’s simply an upgrade of the capability and an expansion of the role of that the OPV’s have.

As the article states, they would be a way of adding additional firepower. Another way would be to buy 3 more AWD’s and that may be the better way to go. What I do like is that the govt is looking at all available ways to act on the problems defence has, and doing it in a timely manner.

 

[Massive]

I was once a corvette fan by now I am thinking full size warships are probably a better option in the modern combat environment. If smaller armed vessels are required I would tend to look more at unmanned vessels.

With the reference to the K-130 (self-defence weapons only outside of SSM, no helicopter, no ASW capability) a suggestion that there is a requirement for a second tier surface combatant that is able to provide some level of sea denial while protecting itself?

Not sure that the platform has to be small to do that - an ANZAC-sized vessel without a VLS (RAM instead) would achieve the same thing with a lot more endurance. Imagine in RAN service some form of ASW capability would be required.

The German approach is to use tenders. That would be another option I guess.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Lolcake]

If they are being aquired as a pure replamcent for OPV or patrol boats vessels, then fair enough, the additional capability will be welcome, but as mentioned above, you start to reach the level of crewing requirements that would be better suited to a light frigate. That 5-6 billion would be far better being put to use on additional hobarts/hunters/burke's.

Seems madness that these would replace the requirement for additional full sized warships. Im hoping this is not the case. Perhaps these will be aquired at the cost of scaling back Land 400. This review has many questions to answer and cannot come soon enough. The wait continues.

 

[StingrayOZ]

How do you work out that replacing the inadequate OPV’s with a vessel of greater capability would mean “completely abandoning our Allies and going back to fortress Australia? It’s simply an upgrade of the capability and an expansion of the role of that the OPV’s have

We have 3 aegis destroyers. They are leaving the water for upgrades, worth $5 billion.
So Australia will have no capability to deploy an aegis ship afar for much of the 2020's. With only 3 ships that was already fickle and limited. Going down to only 2 or 1 ship actually in the water, that isn't real deployable capability. While the Hobarts will have completed their upgrade by 2030, its still only 3 ships, and then we slowly add hunters 1 at a time.

That is very different to fronting up to 2030 with 6 aegis destroyers (and presumably a number above 3 during that period), and adding a hunter ~18 months after that. With 6 we could surge a good number, and a Hobart armed with Sm-6, ESSM, LRASM, NSM, and MH60R's (with torpedos, hellfires or possibly NSM). With CEC and ABM capability, they could contribute to a distributed network of ships, perform ballistic missile interception, land attack, long range naval attack etc.

A corvette isn't going to be be practical to deploy to SCS or really anywhere, outside our EEZ, in fact in most cases, less than our EEZ. Lets face it, Australia sending a corvette to help secure waters around Taiwan is going to be more of an allied liability than a show of force. 7 day resupply, lightly armed in both offense and self defence, and not sporting tier 1 sensors or weapons. Maybe we could base one around Singapore or PNG, and maybe it could do some fishery enforcement. They won't be joining a Taskforce or carrier battle group.

As the article states, they would be a way of adding additional firepower. Another way would be to buy 3 more AWD’s and that may be the better way to go. What I do like is that the govt is looking at all available ways to act on the problems defence has, and doing it in a timely manner.

Not against looking or assessing.

The current OPV Arafura doesn't even have a main gun. Mounting a bolt action 20mm mount to the front would be an increase in firepower.

Previously I have mentioned perhaps the OPV's should have a 57mm gun. Heck they could even have ~two NSM and ditch the Rhibs if you want, on the ships we have already built. I am not sure Corvettes will be as transformational as people in the media sometimes think they will be. The idea that we would send them out against Chinese ships, even Chinese coast guard ships, is absurd. The Chinese ships just need to out endure the 7 day range or the 25kt speed (corvette) or 15kt speed (OPV).

We discussed this in detail back in 2019 and 2020 when Marcus pushed the up gunned OPV battleship.

https://www.aspi.org.au/report/concentrated-vulnerability-distributed-lethality-offshore-patrol-vessels

For $6b we would get better value out of just about anything else.. More P8's, more F-35's, more Hobarts, More Hunters, south korean submarines, another Canberra class with F-35bs on it, land based NSM installations, Aegis ashore, reactivating HMAS Vampire, more MH60R's, more Phalanx across the fleet, giant inflatable decoys, NGAD, sharks with lasers.

 

[Redlands18]

Just look at the Countries that currently operate Corvettes/OCVs, Israel, Taiwan, Indonesia, Malaysia, ROK, Countries in the Black Sea, Baltic, Eastern Med, SE Asia and so on. Countries that are expecting to fight Naval Battles in their own backyard. Look at Countries that are not operating Corvettes/OCVs but Light Frigates/LCS instead. USA, UK, France, Italy, Australia, Canada, Japan, Countries that expect to have to fight their naval battles well outside their Home waters.

 

[Stampede]

Maybe the question for Australia is do we need a middle tier vessel in between a patrol vessel and a destroyer?

If yes what does that look like?

Cheers yes

 

[Redlands18]

Maybe the question for Australia is do we need a middle tier vessel in between a patrol vessel and a destroyer?

If yes what does that look like?

Cheers yes

Frigate, Helicopter (FFH) | Royal Australian Navy
Something like these ships?
Thats what the Anzacs were supposed to be originally, a Patrol Frigate and they were supposed to be followed by 8 Hobarts or something in that size and capability.

 

[Volkodav]

I was once a corvette fan by now I am thinking full size warships are probably a better option in the modern combat environment. If smaller armed vessels are required I would tend to look more at unmanned vessels.

For peacetime patrol purposes I think OPVs are fine but if the proverbial hit the fan it would be too hot for OPV/corvette sized vessels.

When talking survivability it's not the size, per se, that matters but the systems (platform, including hull and propulsion, being a system of systems).

Size comes into it when you need to fit more systems or larger core systems, i.e. put AEGIS on something it will not be small.

Steel is cheap and air is free. With combat systems costing on average more than half the total price of the ship increasing the size of a platform for a given combat system is usually better value for money than cramming the system into the smallest possible platform. There is a caveat in that beyond a certain size a ship stops being cheap and disposable meaning it will then require either greater self-defence capability or will need to be escorted, but what we are talking here is a long way off that.

 

[Milne Bay]

Surely AEGIS isn't needed in every ship.
I thought that existing ships with SAAB 9LV could network with AEGIS and still be part of a system for both offence and defence
MB

 

[76mmGuns]

For us, we'd need something with longer legs and endurance. That would give us something akin to:

The German
Baden-Württemberg-class frigate, which is armed like a corvette (besides the 5 inch gun), but much larger to endurance

Baden-Württemberg-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Or perhaps the USCG Legend class cutter which has a 57mm main gun, but roughly the size of an ANZAC so it has a huge range.

Legend-class cutter - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But you know how this goes. All of us general public know nothing amateurs like me start exhibiting Dunning Kruger Effect and start confidently saying ..look at all that deck space, put 5 main guns and 200 missiles on it, etc etc.

Imho, if you had to build an in between class, I think we could go the Italian route and build one ship class, but outfit them differently, lite/full versions, and use them accordingly.

In any case, we're going to get 9 Hunter's, that's that, so that's enough from me

 

[Massive]

In any case, we're going to get 9 Hunter's, that's that, so that's enough from me

The question is - should it be 12 (or some other number)?

Regards,

Massive

 

[Stampede]

Interesting piece in APDR re the decommissioned Armidale Patrol boat, ex HMAS Maitland being fitted out for autonomous and remotely operated testing.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not... Not really influenced, the government is making statements ahead of the strategic review about the state of defence. Some changes will be due to underperforming projects or change in projects. I don't really think this...

www.defencetalk.com

Well done to the ADF for pushing ahead within field.

Interesting as to where this is all heading with both the surface and subsurface fleet and any "aerial things" that fly off them.


Cheers S.

Ps - I hope I haven't posted something that has already being covered.

 

[Stampede]

It

When talking survivability it's not the size, per se, that matters but the systems (platform, including hull and propulsion, being a system of systems).

Size comes into it when you need to fit more systems or larger core systems, i.e. put AEGIS on something it will not be small.

Steel is cheap and air is free. With combat systems costing on average more than half the total price of the ship increasing the size of a platform for a given combat system is usually better value for money than cramming the system into the smallest possible platform. There is a caveat in that beyond a certain size a ship stops being cheap and disposable meaning it will then require either greater self-defence capability or will need to be escorted, but what we are talking here is a long way off that.

Volk you know stuff!!!

Is it black or white and no grey.
Patrol vessel or high end destroyer only?

My concern is how do you deal with that contingency just above the capability of an OPV.

Our destroyer numbers will always be modest, so surely the more that patrol vessels can deal with, the more the majors will be available to do what they are designed for.................High end war fighting.

What do we have today, about 7 or 8 frigates in the water divided between two coasts.
Maybe a ship for duty on each coast.
How long does it take to sail to where our intended OPV's will conduct patrols.

Sure the RAAF will be able to lend support, but in a world where grey zone tactics will increasingly be employed, an OPV will most likely be the first response.

Could be problematic.


I'm not sure what the government are looking at re the OPV's.
Is it media hype or some genuine change in direction.
Just don't know

However I would suggest something in the middle ground

We don't need a gunned up monster to take on the armada, just some modest increase in muscle to give government more options.

Cheers S

 

[buffy9]

Interesting piece in APDR re the decommissioned Armidale Patrol boat, ex HMAS Maitland being fitted out for autonomous and remotely operated testing.

Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ABC has also put out a piece, whether influenced by the Australian or not... Not really influenced, the government is making statements ahead of the strategic review about the state of defence. Some changes will be due to underperforming projects or change in projects. I don't really think this...

www.defencetalk.com

Well done to the ADF for pushing ahead within field.

Interesting as to where this is all heading with both the surface and subsurface fleet and any "aerial things" that fly off them.


Cheers S.

Ps - I hope I haven't posted something that has already being covered.

I think you might have accidently linked back to the thread unfortunately

Austal Australia takes patrol boat for autonomous tests - APDR

Austal Australia has taken possession of a de-commissioned Armidale-class Patrol Boat (ACPB), the former HMAS Maitland, from the Commonwealth of Australia, to commence planning, modification, and test and evaluation of autonomous and remotely operated systems.

asiapacificdefencereporter.com

Its an interesting big step which is well worth taking imo. I'm not sure if there are any concepts on doing this to remaining PBs that might still have life in them (the six CCPB might be an option once all the OPVs are online, provided they aren't donated or sold) or what function it could serve, but the PBAT definitely appears focused on learning how to operate large USV, rather than creating an actual concept or design.

One of the goals of the PBAT will probably be a focus point going ahead:

Investigate and understand the sustained operation of shipboard mechanical systems without crew intervention, including systems of redundancy and reliability to support operations at sea for extended periods;

Keeping in mind they're doing this on an already well-worn PB, its hard to see major mechanical issues being overcome easily. A lot of complex machinery all working for prolonged periods is bound to go wrong at some point - such as it does on manned ships, only there won't be a technical department to perform daily checks, maintenance and repairs when things do go wrong.

The greatest part is probably related to AUKUS and what inputs the US and UK will have on it (as well as what outputs PBAT will have). DARPA and the USN already have a lot of experience with testing and trialling large USV as it is.

 

[Milne Bay]

Keeping in mind they're doing this on an already well-worn PB, its hard to see major mechanical issues being overcome easily. A lot of complex machinery all working for prolonged periods is bound to go wrong at some point - such as it does on manned ships, only there won't be a technical department to perform daily checks, maintenance and repairs when things do go wrong.

Well perhaps - perhaps not.
If the unmanned ship is operated in a kind of a "loyal wingman" type role, there would likely be an adjacent vessel in the vicinity
MB

 

[buffy9]

Well perhaps - perhaps not.
If the unmanned ship is operated in a kind of a "loyal wingman" type role, there would likely be an adjacent vessel in the vicinity
MB

Which works fine, but other issues might then arise. If its a conflict scenario, the delay in needing to stop and transfer a technical team could prove costly. It would also need to be assessed what a loyal wingman could do for a larger combatant, constabulory or lift vessel.

I'm not pessimistic - I think it is a much needed great big step. PBAT as a project to learn on and from is probably the best option at this stage.

 

[Redlands18]

Which works fine, but other issues might then arise. If its a conflict scenario, the delay in needing to stop and transfer a technical team could prove costly. It would also need to be assessed what a loyal wingman could do for a larger combatant, constabulory or lift vessel.

I'm not pessimistic - I think it is a much needed great big step. PBAT as a project to learn on and from is probably the best option at this stage.

I am not sure they are looking at converting ACPBs to an actual deployable capability, this just a proof-of-concept trial using an available. decommissioned ship. Some on here would know better than I but I wouldn't even be sure about the legality of operating a vessel of this size without people on board to oversee.

 

[Reptilia]

Are the soon to be decommissioned freedom class boats (the first 10) a possibility as corvettes? cutting them open and fixing the issues that have plagued them. The u.s supposably would have solved the problem before building the last 5 of the class.

 

[Meriv90]

IMHO 3 more Hobarts that increase the economy of scale of the other 3 you already have is way better choice, both for capabilities and also because it is a mature design were you risk nothing and IMHO the Spanish would take an instant to deliver them. Ferrol is working only at 68% capacity as of this June. Dont worry for Spain gas price, they got tons of LNG receiving ports/plants and direct connection to Africa, they weren't affected as us Italians of NIMBY syndrome. They are probably one of the safes countries on that topic right now.

Spoiler: Map

Corvettes i really dont see them working with your "problem parameters" unless you go for something like the French version of the Future EPC

European Patrol Corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Long-range patrol variant (reported French preference): 3D radar and combat management systems, medium/short-range SAM, envisaged top speed: 24 knots (44 km/h; 28 mph)[5]

• EPC optimized for anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and designed with oceanic reach (range of 10,000 nautical miles, 19,000 km, 12,000 mi at 14 knots, 26 km/h, 16 mph).
• EPC optimized for blue-water (offshore) patrol missions[6

So you could get a mix on the same platform of OPV and Oceanic corvette.

In that case you would get in together with basically half of EU (ITA/FRA/SPA/DEN/NOR/POR/HK/GRK), get economies of scale, the experience from the other constructors/navies, and you could propose your equipment to the EU market that would adopt the same platform. (look at the success the Koreans are having in Europe, if a product is good you can breach the market)

Or another option. Like Volks said steel is cheap you can create your version of something similar to the Italian PPA.
Ultra cheap frigate focused on FFBNW, long distances and speed.

Since it looks on steel cutting probably you got the hedge, and you are at the top, get those basic hulls in the water, and slowly with time you can upgrade them.

Sorry if it sounds naive or to Euro-centered.