ADF General discussion thread

[Redlands18]

To give some perspective, the RAN River Class Type 12 was 2,560 tons(displacement) and 113m loa.
Back in the day they were Major Fleet Units (MFU).

River class Destroyer Escort Frigate DE Royal Australian Navy

river class frigate destroyer escort hmas type 12m 12i

www.seaforces.org

The striking fact from that article is the range, 3400nm@12kt. For comparison the same site gives the Anzacs 6000nm@18kt, no wonder people talk about how short legged they were. Another interesting point to, is how much ship design has changed, the Avante is actually 1m wider but 15m shorter on a similar displacement.

 

[Morgo]

This article is mostly about the MRH-90 but towards the end it says that in response to Navantia's unsolicited proposal for three new air warfare destroyers, Defence has commissioned Rand Corporation to perform a risk reduction study on the proposal-

Defence officials also confirmed on Wednesday that the Australian government would consider an unsolicited proposal from the Spanish company Navantia to build three more ships for the navy this decade.

Navantia’s pitch to build three additional Hobart-class destroyers includes three options: build them in Spain with some modules in Australia; build them in Spain but with the combat system integration largely done in Australia; and build them entirely in Australia.

Defence has asked analysts from Rand Corporation to do a “risk reduction study” on the proposal so the government can weigh up the idea.

Navantia recently submitted a second unsolicited proposal to build six small warships known as corvettes.

Australia pays to maintain trouble-plagued Taipan helicopters no longer being used by navy | Australian military | The Guardian

I have serious reservations about corvettes in general, and a new class of corvette that has nothing in common with the OPVs in particular.

I can see the merit to the 3x Hobart offer, if it’s credible. A big if.

If it’s not, and the Spaniards have spare capacity, I’d rather they do us a good deal on 2x this built at Ferrol:

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

Which we are going to need to buy (or something like it) at some point anyway, and would take the load off the LHDs.

And I know they still need escorts but a bunch of short range lightly armed corvettes isn’t going to help with that anyway.

 

[hauritz]

This article is mostly about the MRH-90 but towards the end it says that in response to Navantia's unsolicited proposal for three new air warfare destroyers, Defence has commissioned Rand Corporation to perform a risk reduction study on the proposal-

Defence officials also confirmed on Wednesday that the Australian government would consider an unsolicited proposal from the Spanish company Navantia to build three more ships for the navy this decade.

Navantia’s pitch to build three additional Hobart-class destroyers includes three options: build them in Spain with some modules in Australia; build them in Spain but with the combat system integration largely done in Australia; and build them entirely in Australia.

Defence has asked analysts from Rand Corporation to do a “risk reduction study” on the proposal so the government can weigh up the idea.

Navantia recently submitted a second unsolicited proposal to build six small warships known as corvettes.

Australia pays to maintain trouble-plagued Taipan helicopters no longer being used by navy | Australian military | The Guardian

That the RAN is even considering Navantia’s proposal is interesting. I wouldn’t think building entirely in Australia would be an option on account of Hunter program. Certainly Australia needs new ships as quickly as possible and I would expect the RAND study is mostly looking at whether it is even possible to deliver these ships as quickly as the Spanish seem to believe they can.

If ships are needed urgently then Corvettes are probably be more realistic. A possible solution to building corvettes quickly might be simply to start building the MMPV version of the OPV 80.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have serious reservations about corvettes in general, and a new class of corvette that has nothing in common with the OPVs in particular.

I can see the merit to the 3x Hobart offer, if it’s credible. A big if.

If it’s not, and the Spaniards have spare capacity, I’d rather they do us a good deal on 2x this built at Ferrol:

PACIFIC 2019: Navantia Australia Unveils Joint Support Ship Design - Naval News

Which we are going to need to buy (or something like it) at some point anyway, and would take the load off the LHDs.

And I know they still need escorts but a bunch of short range lightly armed corvettes isn’t going to help with that anyway.

First of all a corvette is not an OPV, so lets get that straight. Secondly a corvette isn't going to sail to Hainan and take on the PLAN fleet on its lonesome. It's not a CCG, DDG, or a FFG and makes no pretensions to be such. However it is designed and built as an armed and armoured combat capable warship which an OPV isn't so it can defend it self if it has to. It's not going to go into combat against an enemy CBG, but it is armoured and armed enough to undertake convoy escort and surveillance duties in low to medium threat areas which free up FFGs for other duties.

 

[ASSAIL]

The striking fact from that article is the range, 3400nm@12kt. For comparison the same site gives the Anzacs 6000nm@18kt, no wonder people talk about how short legged they were. Another interesting point to, is how much ship design has changed, the Avante is actually 1m wider but 15m shorter on a similar displacement.

Yes, their short legs were limiting.
While I was on exchange with the RN we deployed to the Caribbean as Guard ship in a Leander (HMS Achilles) and we’re accompanied by a smaller Rover Class tanker for the Atlantic crossing, Plymouth to Bermuda, roughly 3,000 nm.
It is also naval practice to always remain above 30% fuel remaining which further illustrates how short legged this class was certainly in the Asia Pacific theatre.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yes, their short legs were limiting.
While I was on exchange with the RN we deployed to the Caribbean as Guard ship in a Leander (HMS Achilles) and we’re accompanied by a smaller Rover Class tanker for the Atlantic crossing, Plymouth to Bermuda, roughly 3,000 nm.
It is also naval practice to always remain above 30% fuel remaining which further illustrates how short legged this class was certainly in the Asia Pacific theatre.

Think the RNZN frigates Taranaki and Otago were the same too because they were the same class. Auckland Sydney return without bunkering would be a stretch.

 

[Redlands18]

Think the RNZN frigates Taranaki and Otago were the same too because they were the same class. Auckland Sydney return without bunkering would be a stretch.

Would struggle to do Perth to Sydney without refuelling somewhere along the way.

 

[ddxx]

My issue with Corvettes, beyond the obvious range and endurance is two fold:

Firstly, well-equiped modern corvettes often have similar crew requirements to far more capable modern GP Frigate designs. So unless they can get the crew size down to well below modern frigate levels, I just don't see corvettes as a logical use of finite personnel resources.

Secondly, corvettes are compact in nature, and compact designs are inherently not very flexible or able to adapt to change through their life. Corvette designs also generally lack the space to launch and recover UXVs - which should be a key requirement of any mid-tier surface combatant for the RAN. This then allows the platforms to act in an MCM role when required, and potentially removes the need for dedicated MCMVs as per the direction of the Japanese, British and Americans. Freeing up finite personnel to crew multirole / multipurpose combatants that can effortlessly adapt to ever changing requirements and situations.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This article is mostly about the MRH-90 but towards the end it says that in response to Navantia's unsolicited proposal for three new air warfare destroyers, Defence has commissioned Rand Corporation to perform a risk reduction study on the proposal-

This makes loads of sense. It needs to be independently looked at in a quick and efficient way. RAND would be perfect for that.

Navantia recently submitted a second unsolicited proposal to build six small warships known as corvettes.

I like this a lot less.

Three destroyers would seem to be a lot better value than 6 corvettes.

3 additional destroyers gives Australia 6 total. This is enough to conduct and sustain operations and make a regionally/globally significant contribution or form our own taskgroup.

If ships are needed urgently then Corvettes are probably be more realistic. A possible solution to building corvettes quickly might be simply to start building the MMPV version of the OPV 80.

I don't see corvettes arriving any quicker and I don't see them as being particularly useful. While perhaps we do need corvettes, I wouldn't trade 3 destroyers for 6 corvettes.

I can see the merit to the 3x Hobart offer, if it’s credible. A big if.

It is possible the Spanish can guarantee their proposal. Not with useless things like financial penalties, or promises, but with ships. They have 5 aegis destroyers and the Americans base two out of Spain.
If they fall short, but we get a fully crewed Aegis destroyer(s) until the FOC then that is a good deal. The Americans can also help accelerate Aegis and weapons testing and might also back the deal. More than that, they could base it out of Australia, while building, to help crew training and while our destroyers are in upgrade. We absolutely have to talk to the Spanish navy anyway.

We have to look past individual platforms to actual capability we can get.

Which we are going to need to buy (or something like it) at some point anyway, and would take the load off the LHDs.

I actually want to go a different way. Get another LHD. Get another Supply. Why dick around with hybrids. Refit the RAS capability back onto the LHD's, then that is 3 large amphibious ship and 2 AOR with considerable capability.

I would even talk to the Americans about getting the Spanish to commit to have another AOR for themselves and new build destroyers so the australian fleet isn't orphaned. And lean on the europeans to help get the Spanish F-35bs.

 

[Stampede]

This makes loads of sense. It needs to be independently looked at in a quick and efficient way. RAND would be perfect for that.

I like this a lot less.

Three destroyers would seem to be a lot better value than 6 corvettes.

3 additional destroyers gives Australia 6 total. This is enough to conduct and sustain operations and make a regionally/globally significant contribution or form our own taskgroup.

I don't see corvettes arriving any quicker and I don't see them as being particularly useful. While perhaps we do need corvettes, I wouldn't trade 3 destroyers for 6 corvettes.


It is possible the Spanish can guarantee their proposal. Not with useless things like financial penalties, or promises, but with ships. They have 5 aegis destroyers and the Americans base two out of Spain.
If they fall short, but we get a fully crewed Aegis destroyer(s) until the FOC then that is a good deal. The Americans can also help accelerate Aegis and weapons testing and might also back the deal. More than that, they could base it out of Australia, while building, to help crew training and while our destroyers are in upgrade. We absolutely have to talk to the Spanish navy anyway.

We have to look past individual platforms to actual capability we can get.


I actually want to go a different way. Get another LHD. Get another Supply. Why dick around with hybrids. Refit the RAS capability back onto the LHD's, then that is 3 large amphibious ship and 2 AOR with considerable capability.

I would even talk to the Americans about getting the Spanish to commit to have another AOR for themselves and new build destroyers so the australian fleet isn't orphaned. And lean on the europeans to help get the Spanish F-35bs.

Navy are intending to build the supply / amphibious force up to a total of six vessels.
Suggest waiting for the retirement of HMAS Choules to acquired two joint support concept combined Amphibious / supply ships be brought forward.
Maybe a better solution is to add to what we have.
An additional Supply and Canberra Class vessel.

We know how useful these vessels are and in the scheme of things they are NOT a ridiculous cost for what you get back.
For the fleet size we wish to build they would balance the fleet!

Navantia could build an LHD by the end of this decade with a Supply ship completed in the early 2030's to replace HMAS Choules.

This time table would suite Spain's need to replace or compliment their own need for a LHD in the 2030's which could follow on from the RAN order.

We are looking at a Navy that in numbers and quality is far removed from the 80s / 90s / 00s and teens that we have been use to in the past.
We need to think and move with the times to satisfy our expectations.

A trio of large supply and LHD ships is commensurate with the Navy we wish to build.

Cheers S


ps - A third LHD was suggested in the 2010's.

 

[ADMk2]

This makes loads of sense. It needs to be independently looked at in a quick and efficient way. RAND would be perfect for that.

I like this a lot less.

Three destroyers would seem to be a lot better value than 6 corvettes.

3 additional destroyers gives Australia 6 total. This is enough to conduct and sustain operations and make a regionally/globally significant contribution or form our own taskgroup.

I don't see corvettes arriving any quicker and I don't see them as being particularly useful. While perhaps we do need corvettes, I wouldn't trade 3 destroyers for 6 corvettes.


It is possible the Spanish can guarantee their proposal. Not with useless things like financial penalties, or promises, but with ships. They have 5 aegis destroyers and the Americans base two out of Spain.
If they fall short, but we get a fully crewed Aegis destroyer(s) until the FOC then that is a good deal. The Americans can also help accelerate Aegis and weapons testing and might also back the deal. More than that, they could base it out of Australia, while building, to help crew training and while our destroyers are in upgrade. We absolutely have to talk to the Spanish navy anyway.

We have to look past individual platforms to actual capability we can get.


I actually want to go a different way. Get another LHD. Get another Supply. Why dick around with hybrids. Refit the RAS capability back onto the LHD's, then that is 3 large amphibious ship and 2 AOR with considerable capability.

I would even talk to the Americans about getting the Spanish to commit to have another AOR for themselves and new build destroyers so the australian fleet isn't orphaned. And lean on the europeans to help get the Spanish F-35bs.

The proposal as I read it, is 3x new AWD’s AND 6x new Corvettes.

A hike in defence funding to pay for it and OPV’s and several ANZAC class vessels making way (in the RAN at least) along with (hopefully) improved recruiting to man them…

 

[MickB]

I certainly don't think there is a considerable amount of difference in terms of original capability between the two. The Hobarts will appear to be more tightly integrated with Spy + Aegis and a larger vls magazine, making them more suitable for Aegis fleet integration and possibly for SM-3, as well a larger missile load out enabling things like tomahawk. The the difference is mild out of the box, the Hunters have much more room for growth and will probably have a deeper radar horizon and would likely make better ships for individual work.

But I think people are missing what the current ADF and Australian defence discussion is.

It is more about Australia not having a navy at all. Its more like stop building Hunters, get rid of the Hobarts, push the SSN acquisition way, way into the future (shelved). Buy B21's. Perhaps build patrol boats.

It is not a continuum between new Hobarts and Hunters. Its effectively removing large area defence vessels from the RAN, the big ships. Removing both Hobarts and Hunters from the future (or curtailing their build at 3-6). Replacing them with aircraft. Building more Hobarts will be an argument for more Hunters, not the other way around. This would also include disposing of the LHD's and going with smaller amphibious ships that do not need escorts (or so the logic goes). Basically break the submarine arm as well, it turns out SSN's are hard and expensive. Hard to build, hard to operate, hard to dispose of. The USN isn't going to base 12 SSN's and 2 SSBN in Australia. They aren't going to pay for upgrades to FBE and FBW.

Osborne and henderson can then build small ships <2000t. These would then adopt the ASPI Patrol boat battleship concept of putting a NSM on them, maybe with a 40mm gun to deal with air threats. These ships would operate in Australian waters under the safe protection of the RAAF.

This then frees up lots of money for aircraft.

The argument goes that aircraft are more flexible, faster to respond, more survivable. Western doctrine generally has aircraft as the tool for anti-shipping, not ships, therefore, pointless to build large ships as in future wars they are too open to attack, and Australia needs to focus on sinking chinese naval assets. The US is basing B-52's here and will likely base B21's here. So Australia will defund its Navy to fund a much more capable airforce, based around long range bombers. Which will be based up north. The US has already funded upgrades to Tindal.

Also, it is argued it is too hard to staff and crew the Navy. Australians would prefer jobs in the air force. Therefore we should abandon these hard to staff platforms. Fund more upgrades to airbases and long range strike platforms.

I would be interested in how people see that proposal working. Particularly we would be basically be abandoning or winding up any existing ship acquisitions right now, and B21's might appear sometime mid/late 2030's. Perhaps.

I think there is more to defence of Australia than bombing mainland china with B21's. Which likely won't be survivable in Chinese airspace in 2030.
I am also not convinced that moving the Australian navy into a brown water force will solve our problems, nor will again abandoning local manufacturing of complicated things like ships and land platforms for a US off the shelf wonder weapon.

too many people might take this as a real propasal

 

[Volkodav]

The advantage of corvettes is they will grow future major drivers and maintainers more quickly and efficiently than opvs or patrol boats ever will. They will also have useful combat power which opvs and patrol boats don't.

People don't join the RAN to bob around on glorified tinnies, they join to serve on warships, corvettes are warships!

 

[MickB]

rethinking

 

[protoplasm]

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN.

Any combatant needs to be able to defend itself from air, surface and undersea threats. If it can’t it needs to be escorted (a large high value fleet asset), or it’s a patrol vessel that is not expected to act as a combatant.

Self defence against air threats at a minimum means being able to intercept inbound missiles or aircraft at the radar horizon, which implies a range of 15-20nm. Currently for the RAN that means ESSM, which means the vessel needs space and weight for loaded VLS cells, a reasonable radar and combat system to launch and control the missiles, and enough electrical power and cooling to support all of that. On top of this their needs to be point defence systems for close range defence. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound modern anti-ship missiles, it’s a target.

Self-defence against surface threats at a minimum means being able to threaten surface vessels with damage that are threatening your vessel. These can be gun based, or missiles, but at a minimum need to be capable of forcing surface vessels to keep their distance for risk of destruction. These again will require a combat system capable of controlling these weapons. If a combatant can’t defend itself from other armed vessels, it’s a target.

Self-defence against undersea threats at a minimum means being able to detect a submarine or an incoming torpedo, mount a credible defence against a torpedo using hard and soft kill methods, and then preferably be able to hold the submarine at risk using your own torpedo. This needs a reasonable sonar set, with operators, and a means of launching torpedoes as well. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound torpedoes and the submarine which launched them, it’s a target.

Anything less than the above is a target, rather than a combatant. And being Australian, it needs to have enough range to do this across our SLOC, which is going to mean a range of at least 5000nm, with the endurance to keep the crew going as the ship covers that distance.

Cramming all of that into a hull of 3000t or less is going to end up with a silly set of compromises that will make the vessel hard to work with, and force decisions to be made about which capabilities it doesn’t have. You end up with the Anzac class issues all over again. There’s a reason the USN’s smaller blue water combatant (Constellation Class) is going to be >7000t.

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN. Small patrol vessels, fine, but not combatants that are expected to be able to defend themselves when properly threatened.

 

[ddxx]

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN.

Any combatant needs to be able to defend itself from air, surface and undersea threats. If it can’t it needs to be escorted (a large high value fleet asset), or it’s a patrol vessel that is not expected to act as a combatant.

Self defence against air threats at a minimum means being able to intercept inbound missiles or aircraft at the radar horizon, which implies a range of 15-20nm. Currently for the RAN that means ESSM, which means the vessel needs space and weight for loaded VLS cells, a reasonable radar and combat system to launch and control the missiles, and enough electrical power and cooling to support all of that. On top of this their needs to be point defence systems for close range defence. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound modern anti-ship missiles, it’s a target.

Self-defence against surface threats at a minimum means being able to threaten surface vessels with damage that are threatening your vessel. These can be gun based, or missiles, but at a minimum need to be capable of forcing surface vessels to keep their distance for risk of destruction. These again will require a combat system capable of controlling these weapons. If a combatant can’t defend itself from other armed vessels, it’s a target.

Self-defence against undersea threats at a minimum means being able to detect a submarine or an incoming torpedo, mount a credible defence against a torpedo using hard and soft kill methods, and then preferably be able to hold the submarine at risk using your own torpedo. This needs a reasonable sonar set, with operators, and a means of launching torpedoes as well. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound torpedoes and the submarine which launched them, it’s a target.

Anything less than the above is a target, rather than a combatant. And being Australian, it needs to have enough range to do this across our SLOC, which is going to mean a range of at least 5000nm, with the endurance to keep the crew going as the ship covers that distance.

Cramming all of that into a hull of 3000t or less is going to end up with a silly set of compromises that will make the vessel hard to work with, and force decisions to be made about which capabilities it doesn’t have. You end up with the Anzac class issues all over again. There’s a reason the USN’s smaller blue water combatant (Constellation Class) is going to be >7000t.

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN. Small patrol vessels, fine, but not combatants that are expected to be able to defend themselves when properly threatened.

This and my earlier post is exactly why for a mid-tier combatant we shouldn’t be looking at Corvettes, but rather modern, modular, low crew, GP/multipurpose frigates.

Of further benefit, this could very much be in partnership with NZ, coinciding with their planned frigate replacements.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We know how useful these vessels are and in the scheme of things they are NOT a ridiculous cost for what you get back.
For the fleet size we wish to build they would balance the fleet!

Navantia could build an LHD by the end of this decade with a Supply ship completed in the early 2030's to replace HMAS Choules.

It would be possible. There are options. Turkey could build a LHD hull, they have a hot production line. We could do fitout here.
Spain could then focus on a supply ship and the new Hobart builds. I think we should go ahead with a heavy lift on the west coast, but that isn't going to be in time for these projects, but would allow such ships (and allied ships) to be supported on the west coast. Being ships we already have FOC in the Navy, crew and training can be expanded from an already existing large pool. A new type of ship would be starting from scratch.

Facilitating closer relations between Australia and Turkey may be useful defence wise. Turkey has a huge army, and has developed a close links with South Korea. Maybe we should be aligning Turkey-Australia-South Korea defence industry to be more complimentary. We are powerful middle powers, in different regions.

The LHD could pick up the ASW carrier mission, with a light strike/fleet self defence capability. Singapore F-35B's could then also be supported out of there. We would then have something to help block the straits if required. They could also escort oil tankers from the ME to Australia and SEA.

The Army's vehicles aren't getting any smaller. A smaller compromised ship like a JSS may not be very useful at all going into the future. The LHD's will allow the largest and heaviest vehicles, and the largest and most capable landing craft. They are also far superior in air operations. The argument for shrinking the land 400 order is that we can't deploy it, so it appears that we need more amphib capability, even if its tasked with different duties, it could be re-tasked at a later date. Big ships are flexible and can do things well.

too many people might take this as a real propasal

I think its safe to say the outlook for defence in Australia is in a great state of flux. Sure, there is some blue sky thinking, but anything that is being suggested can be found in a serious proposal on ASPI/Lowrey/ADF or spoken about in publications

There are proposals to effectively abolish the Navy and Army. There are fears that Nuclear submarines will be so expensive, they will require the hollowing out of the RAAF and the Army to fund them. There are proposals to basically replace every manned platform with unmanned platforms, right down to infantry. It seems literally everything is on the table. I think we will basically be fighting with what unit types we have today. Nuclear submarines, B21's, plasma rifles and T800 terminator drones do not exist for Australia to have in the next 5 years, not in individual units or in quantity, so it seems conventional weapons and units of today are going to be the items in battle.

I don't see surface ships going anywhere. If there is a lesson out of Ukraine, it is planes can find it nearly impossible to fly in a properly defended airspace. That air defence is important.

The fact that the west may globally run out of 155mm shells next year highlights that even simple dumb munitions are in short supply. The idea that there is an unlimited production of smart munitions and drones in war time is absurd. Think about what it means for technology if Taiwan and South Korea and Japan and China are at war. All tech infrastructure will be disabled instantly. Even a power black out or a shortage of water will disrupt operations.

Replacing Anzacs faster means that these ships could be gifted to someone who needs them. Like Taiwan. 4 or 5 Anzacs would be a huge capability boost for Taiwan or surrounding nations (Philippines? Vietnam? Malaysia? Indonesia?)

 

[seaspear]

In regards to the suggestion of additional Hobart class destroyers ,the present ones are at the capacity of growth and although receiving the Aegis upgrade will not likely have room for anything else ,if this order is considered is there an argument for a larger version for more growth

 

[StingrayOZ]

In regards to the suggestion of additional Hobart class destroyers ,the present ones are at the capacity of growth and although receiving the Aegis upgrade will not likely have room for anything else ,if this order is considered is there an argument for a larger version for more growth

I think the aversion of risk, and the constraint of time, will limit that.

However, I do note that the design was significant refreshed for the US bid, and the winning bid, Fremm, was lengthened for additional growth margin in the new constellation class. 151m in the US design, verse 134 in Italian LPP, 144.6 in LOA, 142 in French LOA. They also went for the Italian width (19.7m) instead of the French (20m)

U.S. Navy: Constellation-class Brings Frigates Back to the U.S. Fleet

Introducing a new class of warship can be fraught with pain, and the first ship is always the hardest – almost always behind schedule and over budget.

www.marinelink.com

The U.S. frigate will be about 23 feet longer and about 500 tons heavier than their European cousins to provide margin for growth and to accommodate future weapons such as lasers, although the bridge and propulsion plant layout is the same.

Realistically if we got new evolved Hobart's, they would have a limited life and growth margin. Probably 20-25 years and then sold on. We are building them, because they are quick to build and bring in service, not because they are the best destroyer. It has limited placement of CIWS, limited growth and stability, and power and cooling and manpower. They are a ship for today, and evolution of the original OHP FFG frigate. They aren't alone in being limited. Burkes are limited, Burke based designs like Kongo, KDXIII etc are all growth limited. All of these would likely struggle to fit new larger VLS tubes, laser weapons, bigger and more powerful weapons and systems.

The future is the Type 26. Eventually an evolution of the T26 hunter will become an air defence destroyer, with less flex space, and more significant space for weapons and sensors etc. But we don't even have the first Hunter yet, let alone an evolved air defence version. We haven't proven CEAfar2 AFAIK integration either, so its not just the hull, the whole system needs to be built.

32VLS is enough for SM-2, SM-6 and ESSM. Heck you might be able to squeeze a few TLAM on board.

But if you are going to go BMD fleet/taskgroup destroyer in Asia, then its not enough. The closer you go, the greater the threat and the greater the capability needs to be. Arguably 48 is limiting, but it is still 50% more than 32. You are also more likely to go with SPY radar to ensure close integration (and allow us to prove integration with our Hunter frigates). Any hobarts in SEA or Asian waters, are their for more reasons than their loadout. They could command Korean/Japanese/US forces in an air defence role.

You also really have to look at the ADF as a whole. Australia has the largest fleet of E7's and strong C&C capability. We have the allied support to lead missions. Japan and SK have issues in those roles, as typically it was envisaged the US would always fill that. Ethically and politically, Australia can and has lead multinational missions, with and with lower levels of US support.

The US is absolutely crippled in terms of their E3 capability. While its there, it could be negatively affected in a high tempo environment.

B52's, B1's, b21, P8's based in Australia, Australia could ensure clear airspace for these to get close enough to make useful strike missions on the outer Chinese possessions and on any far flung Chinese fleets. Australia is also near key straits. In any future conflict we are likely to be critical around the key area of the conflict, controlling what comes in and out of it.

 

[Volkodav]

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN.

Any combatant needs to be able to defend itself from air, surface and undersea threats. If it can’t it needs to be escorted (a large high value fleet asset), or it’s a patrol vessel that is not expected to act as a combatant.

Self defence against air threats at a minimum means being able to intercept inbound missiles or aircraft at the radar horizon, which implies a range of 15-20nm. Currently for the RAN that means ESSM, which means the vessel needs space and weight for loaded VLS cells, a reasonable radar and combat system to launch and control the missiles, and enough electrical power and cooling to support all of that. On top of this their needs to be point defence systems for close range defence. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound modern anti-ship missiles, it’s a target.

Self-defence against surface threats at a minimum means being able to threaten surface vessels with damage that are threatening your vessel. These can be gun based, or missiles, but at a minimum need to be capable of forcing surface vessels to keep their distance for risk of destruction. These again will require a combat system capable of controlling these weapons. If a combatant can’t defend itself from other armed vessels, it’s a target.

Self-defence against undersea threats at a minimum means being able to detect a submarine or an incoming torpedo, mount a credible defence against a torpedo using hard and soft kill methods, and then preferably be able to hold the submarine at risk using your own torpedo. This needs a reasonable sonar set, with operators, and a means of launching torpedoes as well. If a combatant can’t defend itself from inbound torpedoes and the submarine which launched them, it’s a target.

Anything less than the above is a target, rather than a combatant. And being Australian, it needs to have enough range to do this across our SLOC, which is going to mean a range of at least 5000nm, with the endurance to keep the crew going as the ship covers that distance.

Cramming all of that into a hull of 3000t or less is going to end up with a silly set of compromises that will make the vessel hard to work with, and force decisions to be made about which capabilities it doesn’t have. You end up with the Anzac class issues all over again. There’s a reason the USN’s smaller blue water combatant (Constellation Class) is going to be >7000t.

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN. Small patrol vessels, fine, but not combatants that are expected to be able to defend themselves when properly threatened.

Riiiigghttt!!!! So virtually unarmed, tactically useless, unsurvivable PBs and OPVs are perfectly adequate for our personnel to sail and fight in, but something that has equivalent combat power to an ANZAC or Type 31, but with a smaller hull is inadequate?

Basically the there is an assumption that if it's not a 6000 plus tonne frigate it isn't worth providing effective self protection or combat capability to.

Reality check, perfect is the mortal enemy of perfectly good enough, but having nothing at all, or something that is worse than nothing are actually not very sensible alternatives.

The Bathurst class corvettes were far from perfect but we would have been screwed without them, the V&W class destroyers were hopelessly obsolete but were better than nothing.

As capability increases so does cost, but there is a balance where a platform is no longer disposable and needs to be able to fight and survive, which increases costs far more than just tacking on weapons. At the same time, if you need survivable presence in more locations than you have high end combatants to deploy, then you need to compromise.

The question is, should the compromise be survivability, capability, or having something you can deploy at all?