Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

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.

It's an interesting one as the MCM boats are very large........ Manned and unmanned.
Too big I understand for the OPV rear boat ramp.
Flight deck on a cradle.... Maybe.
Yep, trade off's to be made should we go down that path.
CN what's your take?

I'm guessing we'll still go with the OPV 80.


Cheers S

 

[Going Boeing]

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.

I can only go off the articles available online and I believe you are correct that the PWR3 design is based off the S9G but, it is not a direct copy and has been designed for the larger diameter of the Dreadnought class so, it would require significant redesign to fit inside the Astute’s hull diameter.

 

[hauritz]

Seems that just about every decision made by the Turnbull government was wrong. The plan to build conventional submarines was scrapped, the Hunters have ballooned out to over 10,000 tons, and the OPV80s seem to have been deemed unsuitable for the job before the first ship even commissions.

Personally I would take this as a hint that a corvette sized ship will probably also find itself outclassed before it sees service. The lowest risk might well be to build a substancial sized ship such as the Arrowhead140 that will be large enough to accept additional upgrades. Yes, they will cost a bit more but concider how much money has been wasted over the last few years on unsuitable ships and submarines.

Time to bite the bullet, accept that the defence budget will probably blow out past 3%, and buy equipment that is future proofed.

 

[John Fedup]

I can only go off the articles available online and I believe you are correct that the PWR3 design is based off the S9G but, it is not a direct copy and has been designed for the larger diameter of the Dreadnought class so, it would require significant redesign to fit inside the Astute’s hull diameter.

The S9G powers Virginia class SSNs which have 10 m beams versus Astute’s 11 m. Thus reactor width is not an issue but again, perhaps length is.

 

[John Fedup]

Seems that just about every decision made by the Turnbull government was wrong. The plan to build conventional submarines was scrapped, the Hunters have ballooned out to over 10,000 tons, and the OPV80s seem to have been deemed unsuitable for the job before the first ship even commissions.

Personally I would take this as a hint that a corvette sized ship will probably also find itself outclassed before it sees service. The lowest risk might well be to build a substancial sized ship such as the Arrowhead140 that will be large enough to accept additional upgrades. Yes, they will cost a bit more but concider how much money has been wasted over the last few years on unsuitable ships and submarines.

Time to bite the bullet, accept that the defence budget will probably blow out past 3%, and buy equipment that is future proofed.

The 10,000 ton number seems incredibly high. Has this been confirmed? Our CSC is estimated be be about 8,000 tons. Assuming 48 tubes versus the 24 on the CSC, do the extra tubes account for the additional 2,000 tons?

 

[Gooey]

Why CEAFAR?

If it were to replace the Thales radar, that would partly be because:
- proper AESA radars like CEFAR (by which I mean, not a rotating AESA face) are able to provide a detection capability which is a generation ahead of the mechanically scanning types; and,
- because it is a local item with the benefits of logistics, commonality, software/hardware growth, and economy.

If these discussed boats were to have ESSM etc then logic would dictate that you might want to give then a literal fighting advantage rather than accept 'quite good'. Just because RNZN ends up with good enough for the last decade, doesn't mean that is a good strategy for winning kinetic engagements with the PLAN.

 

[alexsa]

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

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.

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.

CEAFAR and the 9LV combination have a distinct ASMD capability that also provide a local area defence capability in that it can use the ESSM to the maximum of its enveloped and engage a crossing target. Using a common combat system also assists in training and support. The 9LV is being rolled out on the AOR and Arafura (and other MFU) for that reason.

The Astute barrel is 11.3m, the Virginia is 10m (as has been the case in all their modern SSN’s). Width is not an issue.

 

[Tbone]

Is the arrowhead 140 the only light frigate available to the RAN? It get mention regularly but don’t see how they can be built in Australia before 2028.
The options so for that I’m aware of and the companies that have approached the DSR are

Navantia- Alpha 3000
Lurssen- MMPV 90
TKMS- Meko A300

The obvious choice would be the MMPV90 which will have many features already present on the opv80 so would reduce maintenance cost and be built quickly.

the MeKo A300 looks to be a very capable platform and I do recall meeting by TKMS with marles taking place last year.

it will be interesting to see which way the government goes on this.

regarding submarines I still think we will receive refueled los angles class submarines form the US. The process has been given the green light by the US to start this year. They will be refueling and upgrading the los angeles class boats to extend there life by 10 years. This process will take 3years and be funded by the Australian government.
These will be transferred over to the RAN from 2027-32 taking them to 2037-42.
That will then give the time needed to build the SSN-R subs which will begin in 2030 and arrive in 2038.
This will give no capability gap as stated by marles. Australia has nuclear submarines operating by 2027 to take over from Collins de commission before new nuclear subs take over from Los Angeles class de commissions.

that’s a timeline that is doable and has all AUKUS parties working together.

 

[swerve]

Arrowhead 140 isn't a light frigate. It's a full-size frigate (up to 7000 tons full load) being built for the RN in a lightly armed configuration, but which can be configured to customer requirements. For example, Poland has ordered a more heavily armed version with 32 Mk 41 VLS able to take up to 128 CAMM or possibly CAMM-ER, hull mounted & towed sonars, SM400 4-face & an NS50 rotating radar (all sensors by Thales), MU90 torpedoes, etc.

 

[hauritz]

The 10,000 ton number seems incredibly high. Has this been confirmed? Our CSC is estimated be be about 8,000 tons. Assuming 48 tubes versus the 24 on the CSC, do the extra tubes account for the additional 2,000 tons?

The media claimed 100000 tons but there was nothing official. It was considered to be considerably overweight at one point. I don’t know what the weight issues are exactly but if I were to hazard a guess I would say it was that massive radar mast. A lot more top weight means more ballast and so on.

That would be my guess anyway.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Is the arrowhead 140 the only light frigate available to the RAN? It get mention regularly but don’t see how they can be built in Australia before 2028.
The options so for that I’m aware of and the companies that have approached the DSR are

Navantia- Alpha 3000
Lurssen- MMPV 90
TKMS- Meko A300

The obvious choice would be the MMPV90 which will have many features already present on the opv80 so would reduce maintenance cost and be built quickly.

the MeKo A300 looks to be a very capable platform and I do recall meeting by TKMS with marles taking place last year.

it will be interesting to see which way the government goes on this.

regarding submarines I still think we will receive refueled los angles class submarines form the US. The process has been given the green light by the US to start this year. They will be refueling and upgrading the los angeles class boats to extend there life by 10 years. This process will take 3years and be funded by the Australian government.
These will be transferred over to the RAN from 2027-32 taking them to 2037-42.
That will then give the time needed to build the SSN-R subs which will begin in 2030 and arrive in 2038.
This will give no capability gap as stated by marles. Australia has nuclear submarines operating by 2027 to take over from Collins de commission before new nuclear subs take over from Los Angeles class de commissions.

that’s a timeline that is doable and has all AUKUS parties working together.

Do you have a source for that claim on USA supplying refueled Los Angeles class SSNs to the RAN? The refuelling is a very resource intensive process that takes up a lot of shipyard time. I thought the USN was desperately short of shipyard resources.

 

[Redlands18]

Is the arrowhead 140 the only light frigate available to the RAN? It get mention regularly but don’t see how they can be built in Australia before 2028.
The options so for that I’m aware of and the companies that have approached the DSR are

Navantia- Alpha 3000
Lurssen- MMPV 90
TKMS- Meko A300

The obvious choice would be the MMPV90 which will have many features already present on the opv80 so would reduce maintenance cost and be built quickly.

the MeKo A300 looks to be a very capable platform and I do recall meeting by TKMS with marles taking place last year.

it will be interesting to see which way the government goes on this.

regarding submarines I still think we will receive refueled los angles class submarines form the US. The process has been given the green light by the US to start this year. They will be refueling and upgrading the los angeles class boats to extend there life by 10 years. This process will take 3years and be funded by the Australian government.
These will be transferred over to the RAN from 2027-32 taking them to 2037-42.
That will then give the time needed to build the SSN-R subs which will begin in 2030 and arrive in 2038.
This will give no capability gap as stated by marles. Australia has nuclear submarines operating by 2027 to take over from Collins de commission before new nuclear subs take over from Los Angeles class de commissions.

that’s a timeline that is doable and has all AUKUS parties working together.

TKMS does not own the Meko design, Blohm and Voss does and their parent company is Lurssen. So any contract to build Mekos in Australia would be done through Lurssen, especially if you are going to cancel Arafura's.
Not sure how having only 2 MMPV90s available at any one time improves the RANs capabilities much, too limited in range, endurance and survivability.

Arrowhead 140 isn't a light frigate. It's a full-size frigate (up to 7000 tons full load) being built for the RN in a lightly armed configuration, but which can be configured to customer requirements. For example, Poland has ordered a more heavily armed version with 32 Mk 41 VLS able to take up to 128 CAMM or possibly CAMM-ER, hull mounted & towed sonars, SM400 4-face & an NS50 rotating radar (all sensors by Thales), MU90 torpedoes, etc.

And the loser in the Polish project was the Meko A300.

I think if Australia was looking at a Meko product it would be more likely to be the A100 Light Frigate or the A200 which is basically the modern version of the Anzac.

 

[Volkodav]

Is the arrowhead 140 the only light frigate available to the RAN? It get mention regularly but don’t see how they can be built in Australia before 2028.
The options so for that I’m aware of and the companies that have approached the DSR are

Navantia- Alpha 3000
Lurssen- MMPV 90
TKMS- Meko A300

The obvious choice would be the MMPV90 which will have many features already present on the opv80 so would reduce maintenance cost and be built quickly.

the MeKo A300 looks to be a very capable platform and I do recall meeting by TKMS with marles taking place last year.

it will be interesting to see which way the government goes on this.

regarding submarines I still think we will receive refueled los angles class submarines form the US. The process has been given the green light by the US to start this year. They will be refueling and upgrading the los angeles class boats to extend there life by 10 years. This process will take 3years and be funded by the Australian government.
These will be transferred over to the RAN from 2027-32 taking them to 2037-42.
That will then give the time needed to build the SSN-R subs which will begin in 2030 and arrive in 2038.
This will give no capability gap as stated by marles. Australia has nuclear submarines operating by 2027 to take over from Collins de commission before new nuclear subs take over from Los Angeles class de commissions.

that’s a timeline that is doable and has all AUKUS parties working together.

You are talking platforms when we don't yet know the strategic decisions that will underpin force structure.

Then there are the industrial capacity, contactoral, skills, resources (including demographic), infrastructure, supportability, interoperability, opportunity cost and timing issues.

Basically you are screaming "42" and you have yet to determine the question.

 

[hauritz]

So much we don’t know.

A lot will come down to how seriously the government takes our current strategic situation. If things really dire we could expect a Captain’s choice and all the associated risks. Otherwise we may see a selection process to determine what best suits our needs.

If it is a Captain’s choice I would expect a stretched version of OPV80 and perhaps additional Hobarts. Just about any other option would require a drawn out selection process. I guess we will find out in the coming weeks.

 

[alexsa]

So much we don’t know.

A lot will come down to how seriously the government takes our current strategic situation. If things really dire we could expect a Captain’s choice and all the associated risks. Otherwise we may see a selection process to determine what best suits our needs.

If it is a Captain’s choice I would expect a stretched version of OPV80 and perhaps additional Hobarts. Just about any other option would require a drawn out selection process. I guess we will find out in the coming weeks.

I wonder about the focus on more Hobart class DDG's. These are at the end of their growth margin now. The RAN will have to work hard to fit the planned upgrades into them. This certainly is not a hull that can take 100+ VLS in its current form. Stretching the platfrom would be significant job and you may as well plug the Hunter (which will be building its first block this year) as has been suggested. Just getting on and building the Hunters as now designed at a faster rate make be a more effective way of getting extra cells at sea (noting they replace a vessel with 8 cells with 36 ... or 42 if that comes off).

I worry about a number of issues on all the ideas floating about:

1. Any corvette (80 to 100m) may divert funds from projects such as the Hunter without providing a usable asset that can be intergrated into current operations. This may also derail the continous build programme.

2. Any overseas offer (Navnatia) will produce a vessel that with struggle to take the capability (noting their offer is the F105 hull) and has no growth margin. It also means an additional logistics train as much of the equipment on the Hobard DDG is out of production (to be fair this will be the same for diferent batches of the Hunter, however, this logistic train is established prior to the next batch starting) This is likely to derail the continous build programme.

3. So called cheap and simple platforms will be fitted with weapons and combat systems not currently in Australian use to save costs. This detracts for the ability to support the vessel and complicates training. In the 80's DE folk often stayed on DE's same with the DDG's and the FFG's. This reflected the different machinery, systems and weapons on each class. This may also derail the continous build programme. We need this programme start and remain in place to avoid just the situation we are now in.

4. Splitting the build of Hunters with a build of 100+ cell DDG's may derail ecconomies of scale meaning the drumbeat of deliveries will be longer. Iterative growth of the Hunter over batches appears a better option (provide we start on a new build vessel after the 9 hulls are delivered).

So if defence are going to build a second tier combattant to bulk out the numbers it should not detract from the current projects and it should use current weapons and combat systems. This does not mean AEGIS and CEC but CEAFAR and SAAB 9LV are very capable and can add somethign to task group in that ships fitted with these systems can add something to the defence of a convoy or group (rather than only just being able to defend themselves)

The current reporting and leaking of this process makes the Australia DoD look pretty poor in how it manages capability. It really does look like 'shiny kit syndrome' ..... a 'mega cruiser' it is desired because it looks cool ....... how it fits into the operational needs of the RAN against percived threats does not appear to have been discussed. The whole thing is not helped by individuals, the press and think tanks with an agenda.

 

[Stampede]

So much we don’t know.

A lot will come down to how seriously the government takes our current strategic situation. If things really dire we could expect a Captain’s choice and all the associated risks. Otherwise we may see a selection process to determine what best suits our needs.

If it is a Captain’s choice I would expect a stretched version of OPV80 and perhaps additional Hobarts. Just about any other option would require a drawn out selection process. I guess we will find out in the coming weeks.

Two people doing the DSR
Hand to the PM
Let's go shopping.

A bit simplistic, but I reckon in broad terms many ideas were already formulated six months ago.
The DSR will do the fine tuning.

Whatever the outcome my guess is Lurrsen will be a winner.


Cheers S

 

[Wombat000]

I wonder about the focus on more Hobart class DDG's. These are at the end of their growth margin now.

When it comes down to it, I’m thinking these potential new-Hobarts procurement offers won’t be regarded in the same time honoured way.
ie: of extensive Life of Type class.
The priority will be as indicated, hulls-in-water ASAP, to be deployed ASAP.
Seems like the Navantia offer provides this opportunity. -correct?

These theoretical ships may eventually have a longer lifespan in the RAN, should deterrence work, but theyd have then served their optimal purpose. In which case perhaps even a future peace-dividend may see them paid off or laid up early?? = will they then even be upgraded much anyway, seems more logical with the luxury of time to adapt a Hunter design.

Should they actually be used then they’re (I perceive) of evolved difference to what’s already in service, as they’d probably not have much idle time to be upgraded much anyway?

Thinking of the PLAN as a convenient example, they seem to be building a massive fleet with not much longer term maintenence/growth liability concerns. = perhaps they intend to use them?

im unsure how long China can maintain such a fleet anyway, perhaps they don’t either and perhaps it’s not a relevant question in their minds?

 

[ddxx]

The issue with any of the mentioned corvette or light frigate designs is simple:

Range, endurance and capacity (and in turn through-life adaptability).

Any second tier combatant arguably needs to be able to conduct long duration, independent presence over great distances without the need for accompanying support. That's just the reality of our region's vast geography.

In peace time that's all about naval presence, diplomacy and maritime security. In war time, that's about having the legs to escort and protect merchant shipping whilst our major large surface combatants are tied up.

• The MMPV has a range of only 3,000 nmi (at an unquoted speed, no endurance figure) - I really don't know why people keep bringing it up!
• The Braunschweig-class K130 has a range of only 4,000 nmi at 15 knots, and an independent endurance of only 7 days.
• The ALFA 3000 has a range of 5,000 nmi at 15 knots (endurance not given). That figure would be much lower at a standard 18 knots.
• The MEKO-100 has a range of 4,500 nmi at only 14 knots (No endurance figure).

Any second tier combatant should at least match the range of Anzac: 6,000 nmi at 18 knots, and have an endurance well in excess of 30 days.

Ships getting bigger is a general trend and extra capacity and through-life flexibility shouldn't be seen as a bad thing. Imagine if Anzac was a bit smaller as the extra space/weight capacity wasn't needed in her originally planned role as a patrol frigate?

 

[seaspear]

Do you have a source for that claim on USA supplying refueled Los Angeles class SSNs to the RAN? The refuelling is a very resource intensive process that takes up a lot of shipyard time. I thought the USN was desperately short of shipyard resources.

There was some discussion on Australian participation with Americas submarine program
Everybody Wins If Australia Gets ‘New’ Los Angeles Class Subs ASAP (forbes.com)
This is from 2018 so interesting timing
Caldwell: Los Angeles-class sub refueling will start with Cheyenne in 2023 | InsideDefense.com
This article suggests that although money has been spent on some of the pier bound Los Angeles class thay may not be fit for purpose and Australia would have to be very careful if offered
To Help America’s New Subs, Retire The USS Boise And Hartford (forbes.com)
Certainly this class of submarine already has the U.S combat system already installed and for perhaps goood for ten years or so of operations until next generation is ready
Why Australia Should Lease Los Angeles-Class Submarines from the US Navy - 19FortyFive

@seaspear
It's not up to you to answer for him. This is the second time that you have poked your nose in where it's not required. Don't do it again.

Ngatimozart.

 

[Todjaeger]

There was some discussion on Australian participation with Americas submarine program
Everybody Wins If Australia Gets ‘New’ Los Angeles Class Subs ASAP (forbes.com)
This is from 2018 so interesting timing
Caldwell: Los Angeles-class sub refueling will start with Cheyenne in 2023 | InsideDefense.com
This article suggests that although money has been spent on some of the pier bound Los Angeles class thay may not be fit for purpose and Australia would have to be very careful if offered
To Help America’s New Subs, Retire The USS Boise And Hartford (forbes.com)
Certainly this class of submarine already has the U.S combat system already installed and for perhaps goood for ten years or so of operations until next generation is ready
Why Australia Should Lease Los Angeles-Class Submarines from the US Navy - 19FortyFive

For some of the speculation taking place, I have this question. Is Australia in a position at present to support and operate SSN's? If turnkey sales or leases of USN Los Angeles-class SSN's were to take place, does Australia have the personnel to crew, maintain and support them? How about the port/naval base facilities?

I highly doubt that the RAN would be in a position to be able to operate ex-USN Los Angeles-class SSN's within the next few years, and I would be quite skeptical about any claims of value to the RAN in operating such SSN's. To provide some perspective, the newest Los Angeles-class SSN was completed ~27 years ago and subsequently there have been two newer generations of US SSN to enter service, the Seawolf-class and the Virginia-class respectively, whilst development of another generation of SSN is currently getting underway. In short, much of what RAN personnel would get actual hands on experience operating would be irrelevant to whatever SSN the RAN would have in service in the future.

As a side note, the 1945 site also had a post arguing that the WWII M2 Carbine was the best rifle ever used by the US military. Publishing content like that is an immediate red flag to me that the site (and thus the content itself) is suspect.