Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[icelord]

Just a couple of questions and observations about any potential build of three additional destroyers and perhaps half a dozen corvettes.

First of all could Australia risk building these ships overseas?
Lets say we were to take up the Spanish offer to build or even share construction of these ships with Australia. Lets say that sometime before these ships are delivered we are drawn into a conflict with China. Could we really rely on the Spanish or any other foreign power to deliver those ships?

I am reminded of what happened to the Mistrals that France built for Russia. For that and other reasons I think these ships would need to be built entirely in Australia.

That would raise the second question of whether the spare capacity exists to build these ships in Australia. I admit I have no idea of what capacity exists and how quickly extra capacity could be added.

Or worse, we are required to conduct a Cherbourg incident

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I understand that the lead boat of the Astute class is to be retired in 2035 and that the reactors cannot be refueled and have just a 25 year life , Im not aware if it's possible to replace the reactor but the present nuclear reactor is no longer in production

Actually the reactor does not have to be replaced. The fuel core needs replacement. This is a long, complex operation that requires cutting open the hull, extracting the core from the reactor and installing a new one. This work must all be done very precisely to a nuclear engineering standard. It is costly and may not be worthwhile on a 25 year old sub. But in fact UK has refueled PWR2 reactors on the Vanguard class SSBNs,, to extend their lives till the Dreadnoughts entered service.

If Australia goes for UK designed SSNs but with the US S9G reactor one advantage is that the US reactor core has a 32 yearlife, not 25.

You can see why SSN maintenance becomes a big deal and if Australian shipyards develop the skill to maintain SSNs, including the reactor, that will be invaluable to both the RN and USN. Both have a backlog of SSN maintenance. Some USN SSNs have been waiting over a year tied up in dock waiting for scheduled maintenance.

Whilst I support the RAN getting SSNs and AUKUS generally, IMO there were a few fibs told by politicians when it was announced. One was about us “not needing to touch” the reactors. That was false. They won't need refueling, but will need regular and thorough maintenance.

Some of the statements made about the French nuclear sub option were also false. It is powered by LEU uranium cores which need replacing every ten years (not seven). The Suffren design includes a special hatch to allow this in a few weeks. This would have a small impact on long term maintenance which would occur every ten years. In fact, since an LEU core does not breach the NNPT and spares could be stored in Australia, we could have refueled them here if we built the appropriate infrastructure. The French originally developed HEU reactors like USA and UK and did a lot of work to shift to LEU because it eliminated many risks. The Suffren is more automated and needs a smaller crew as a result. I’m not suggesting the Suffren is superior to an Astute, but it was a viable option that should not have been dismissed until we knew for sure that we could get US or UK designs built.

There is a lot of information about naval reactors at this site.

Nuclear-Powered Ships - World Nuclear Association

Over 160 ships are powered by more than 200 small nuclear reactors. Most are submarines, but they range from icebreakers to aircraft carriers. In future, constraints on fossil fuel use in transport may bring marine nuclear propulsion into more widespread use.

world-nuclear.org

 

[StoresBasher]

First post in quite a few years, and yes I am still serving

 

[seaspear]

After 25 years of service it doesn’t make sense to replace a reactor which has a 25 year lifetime into a sub that already has 25 years of service, simply not value for money. As I understand, the boats under consideration are new or just about. The same would apply to Virginia reactor replacement as well. I believe their lifetime is 30+ years.

There was consideration of leasing Los Angeles type submarines soon coming out of service the last of these built in 1995 , certainly the Astute class has been shown to be closer to peer level of the successor to the Los Angeles the Virginia class my post was in regards to the feasibility of some possible life extension to these early Astute class when at end of original service life , even if feasible I would expect to be costly and a difficult project but may possibly address the shortfall of availability on a temporary measure

 

[Redlands18]

First post in quite a few years, and yes I am still serving

Welcome back.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

There was consideration of leasing Los Angeles type submarines soon coming out of service the last of these built in 1995 , certainly the Astute class has been shown to be closer to peer level of the successor to the Los Angeles the Virginia class my post was in regards to the feasibility of some possible life extension to these early Astute class when at end of original service life , even if feasible I would expect to be costly and a difficult project but may possibly address the shortfall of availability on a temporary measure

Seaspear
Yes life extension of Astutes would be possible. As I said, the RN has already done life extension on the Vanguards, which use the same PWR2 reactor. As long as everyone understands we are talking about a two year job costing maybe a half billion dollars.

 

[StoresBasher]

Thank you good to be back

 

[InterestedParty]

Commodore Peter Scott's memoir about his service in Australian submarines, is being published in April.
It's called Running Deep. I don't know the man but I am looking forward to reading it

 

[Going Boeing]

Seaspear
Yes life extension of Astutes would be possible. As I said, the RN has already done life extension on the Vanguards, which use the same PWR2 reactor. As long as everyone understands we are talking about a two year job costing maybe a half billion dollars.

The PWR2 Core H can be refuelled but at significant expense & time. As stated in the attached article “In December 2015, HMS Vanguard entered a ‘Long Overhaul Period and Refuel’, which was expected to take about 3 years and cost around £200m. It took almost seven years.” This was the first (&, at this stage, only) PWR2 Core H refuel as the remainder of the Vanguard class have been assessed as having enough fuel for the remainder of their service life.

Trident missile-armed submarine HMS Vanguard re-joins fleet

Another strong reason why the US S9G reactor would be the preferred option (apart from having an extra 8 years fuel (33)), is that it has convective cooling which allows it to produce a reasonable level of power without having to run the main cooling pumps which do generate substantial noise. I have read that the Virginia’s can cruise at 20 knots with convective cooling. The PWR3 is reported as having this capability but the PWR2 requires the cooling pumps to be running at all times.

 

[hauritz]

Or worse, we are required to conduct a Cherbourg incident

Actually it is probably just a matter of time before we have to deal with China's paramilitary fishing fleet. The Chinese are no strangers to grey-zone conflicts. That is why it is still important to ensure that the Arafuras and Capes are all adequately armed.

How China’s maritime militia takes advantage of the grey zone | The Strategist

At the end of last year, Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies released the 2023 edition of its annual China security report, which focuses on China’s quest for control of the cognitive domain and grey-zone ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

 

[Volkodav]

Actually it is probably just a matter of time before we have to deal with China's paramilitary fishing fleet. The Chinese are no strangers to grey-zone conflicts.

How China’s maritime militia takes advantage of the grey zone | The Strategist

At the end of last year, Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies released the 2023 edition of its annual China security report, which focuses on China’s quest for control of the cognitive domain and grey-zone ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Grey zone is where corvettes become the minimum rather than patrol boats. Ramming is a tactic that is already being used in SCS meaning that anything we mean to deal with it needs to have overmatch.

 

[Stampede]

Actually it is probably just a matter of time before we have to deal with China's paramilitary fishing fleet. The Chinese are no strangers to grey-zone conflicts. That is why it is still important to ensure that the Arafuras and Capes are all adequately armed.

How China’s maritime militia takes advantage of the grey zone | The Strategist

At the end of last year, Japan’s National Institute for Defense Studies released the 2023 edition of its annual China security report, which focuses on China’s quest for control of the cognitive domain and grey-zone ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Regardless of the outcome the DSR the Arafura class will evolve over their life span.
Will watch with interest.

Cheers S

 

[Stuart M]

Grey zone is where corvettes become the minimum rather than patrol boats. Ramming is a tactic that is already being used in SCS meaning that anything we mean to deal with it needs to have overmatch.

Overmatch...Like these? If Greg Sheridan isn't questioning the lack of ram bows to counter the illegal and unsafe methods of the CCP I will be shocked.




@Stuart M Sources are required for the images. You have been on here long enough to know the rules.

Ngatimozart

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst the paper called them ‘corvettes’ because they’re lazy, the model quoted in the article, the ALFA 3000, is categorised as a Light Frigate by Navantia.

As per the name, it’s a ~3,000 tonne design.

The AH140 has a displacement of 6,600 tonnes; twice that of a 3,000 tonne corvette / light frigate.

Even more amazing when according to Navy Lookout on Twitter Arrowhead's £250 million unit price even includes the 1x 57mm, 2x 40mm, Thales Radar and CMS (as Thales are part of the consortium). That's roughly $440 million AUD per frigate before other GFE (e.g. NSM / MK 41).

For us, we'd likely swap out the Thales CMS for SAAB 9LV with the Australian Interface, along with a variant of CEAFAR in place of the Thales radar.

Why CEAFAR? The Thales radar is quite good and you are not having to stuff around designing, manufacturing, and prototype bespoke systems. The integration costs money and takes time. The object of the corvette / light frigate exercise is to get hulls in the water so that they can free up the frigates for combat duties by taking over escort roles and rear area patrolling. That's what corvettes / light frigates do and they don't need to be as well armed or have the same sensor fit of a FFG or DDG. They are not going to be doing a Lord Nelson by taking on the PLAN Far Seas Fleet in a shoot out.

If Australia goes for UK designed SSNs but with the US S9G reactor one advantage is that the US reactor core has a 32 yearlife, not 25.

The US S9G reactor has a larger diameter than the PWR2 in the Astutes so the Astute hull would have to be increased in diameter to be able to instal the S9G reactor. That's a step to far because it requires a major design change to the hull and that affects its seakeeping and acoustics.

 

[Going Boeing]

The US S9G reactor has a larger diameter than the PWR2 in the Astutes so the Astute hull would have to be increased in diameter to be able to instal the S9G reactor. That's a step to far because it requires a major design change to the hull and that affects its seakeeping and acoustics.

I think that statement is inaccurate as the Virginia class has a hull diameter of 10m whereas the Astute is more than 11m. You may be thinking of the PWR3 which requires an increased diameter & thus is unsuitable for being fitted to to the Astute hull.

 

[Tbone]

Realistically the iurssen mmpv 90 corvette will be the quickest way to get hulls in the water.
The OPV’s might be cut back then the planned MCM vessels will start production once the Arafura class boats are completed.
My question is will a variation of the Bulgarian mmpv 90 design be capable for patrolling our near waters providing escort duties and ASW operations.
Everyone is putting up the arrowhead 140 but the navy is looking for low manning corvettes that are cheaper and use less sailors as they will be coming online this decade most likely with new destroyers so sailors are a major factor.
Is there other options of corvettes that are more capable then the mmpv90?
That can be built in WA and in the water by 2028 as planned?
I don’t think there is so what should their mmpv90 be fitted out with and all for a $500mil price tag.

6x Arafura class OPV’s - 2020-2023
Followed by
8x MCM class vessels (Arafura variation) 2023-2028
Followed by
8x MMPV 90 corvette 2028- 3035

 

[John Fedup]

I think that statement is inaccurate as the Virginia class has a hull diameter of 10m whereas the Astute is more than 11m. You may be thinking of the PWR3 which requires an increased diameter & thus is unsuitable for being fitted to to the Astute hull.

I thought the PWR3 design is based off the SG9? If this is correct then from a beam perspective the PWR3 should be ok as the Astute class has that extra 1 meter. Length might be an issue.

 

[Stampede]

Realistically the iurssen mmpv 90 corvette will be the quickest way to get hulls in the water.
The OPV’s might be cut back then the planned MCM vessels will start production once the Arafura class boats are completed.
My question is will a variation of the Bulgarian mmpv 90 design be capable for patrolling our near waters providing escort duties and ASW operations.
Everyone is putting up the arrowhead 140 but the navy is looking for low manning corvettes that are cheaper and use less sailors as they will be coming online this decade most likely with new destroyers so sailors are a major factor.
Is there other options of corvettes that are more capable then the mmpv90?
That can be built in WA and in the water by 2028 as planned?
I don’t think there is so what should their mmpv90 be fitted out with and all for a $500mil price tag.

6x Arafura class OPV’s - 2020-2023
Followed by
8x MCM class vessels (Arafura variation) 2023-2028
Followed by
8x MMPV 90 corvette 2028- 3035

We don't know what's in the DSR.
But if we do introduce a Corvette it will be a trade off between time and capability and budget.
If it's time ,then something thats a real ship makes sense.
MMPV ticks alot if boxes and it's from Lurrsen, so we already have a relationship to work with.
How much we Australianise the design again enters the cost / time / budget balancing act.


Not long before we get some answers.

A modified lurrsen product has been my preference with the initial OPVs becoming the survey / MCM vessels


Cheers S

 

[Tbone]

Is it possible to have the first 6 Arafura OPV’s converted into the MCM vessels or do they require a design change? As the MCM vessel is using the opv 80 hull but not sure how much variation is needed to under take the MCM capability or it’s just modular?
be great if they could convert to survey/MCM and then build the mmpv90.
12 mmpv90 vessels for patrol and inner defence would be such a great capability

 

[icelord]

My understanding is Mine Warfare branch have deemed the OPV 'Unsuitable' for their purposes and maintain a desire for their own procurement of a seperate vessel. CN may tell them to "suck it up princess" and use them, but it will also be interesting how suitable they are for mine laying as well as sweeping.