Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I would read that as smaller ships than the Hunters.
So fingers crossed that means a tier 2 replacement of the ANZACs (6 to 8 GP Frigates), in addition to the three Hobart's and six of the planned nine Hunters.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
From page 57:
8.22 As a maritime nation dependent on our sea lines of communication, it is essential that the shape, size and scope of the Navy’s surface combatant fleet is appropriate for the levels of risk we now face.
8.23 Such a fleet should consist of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants in order to provide for increased strike, air defence, presence operations and anti-submarine warfare.
8.24 Enhancing Navy’s capability in long-range strike (maritime and land), air defence and anti-submarine warfare requires the acquisition of a contemporary optimal mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants, consistent with a strategy of a larger number of smaller surface vessels.
8.22 As a maritime nation dependent on our sea lines of communication, it is essential that the shape, size and scope of the Navy’s surface combatant fleet is appropriate for the levels of risk we now face.
8.23 Such a fleet should consist of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants in order to provide for increased strike, air defence, presence operations and anti-submarine warfare.
8.24 Enhancing Navy’s capability in long-range strike (maritime and land), air defence and anti-submarine warfare requires the acquisition of a contemporary optimal mix of Tier 1 and Tier 2 surface combatants, consistent with a strategy of a larger number of smaller surface vessels.
Smaller ships are much less capable though. They have less range, less powerful sensors, carry less weapons and their crews are not much smaller than the planned larger warships. Unless we are planning on buying type 31 GP frigates (or similar) I in addition to the Hunters, I see this as a net loss in capability.
Haha the answer is.. more reviews!
Which is why I don't hold much faith in leaks with definitive outcomes.
However, it does seem what ever we are doing we are looking at domestic construction for the surface fleet. I don't see this a cuts to local production. Hunters are built in batches, and we know that ships 9+ won't be exactly the same as Hunter #1. It seems like there might be a break in construction as the design evolved between batches. But the sounds IMO sound like domestic construction in any change.
Smaller ships, I agree, smaller than Hunter, which isn't a surprise, no one is saying 16,000 t cruisers. So I think its official they are looking at options like additional new build Hobart's or a smaller frigate (I won't call them Corvettes). Which isn't that surprising. Smaller ships could be 5000-7000t and 3000-4000t which is still quite capable ships.
They are talking about the work issues at Henderson and Osborne. They are still talking about the henderson drydock etc.
At least they seem aware.
Which is why I don't hold much faith in leaks with definitive outcomes.
However, it does seem what ever we are doing we are looking at domestic construction for the surface fleet. I don't see this a cuts to local production. Hunters are built in batches, and we know that ships 9+ won't be exactly the same as Hunter #1. It seems like there might be a break in construction as the design evolved between batches. But the sounds IMO sound like domestic construction in any change.
Smaller ships, I agree, smaller than Hunter, which isn't a surprise, no one is saying 16,000 t cruisers. So I think its official they are looking at options like additional new build Hobart's or a smaller frigate (I won't call them Corvettes). Which isn't that surprising. Smaller ships could be 5000-7000t and 3000-4000t which is still quite capable ships.
They are talking about the work issues at Henderson and Osborne. They are still talking about the henderson drydock etc.
At least they seem aware.
knightrider4
Active Member
You have far more faith than I do. Countries buy tier 2 or 3 vessels because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Look for the Hunters to be cut to six and some corvettes purchased. Again you have to ask if the government is stating we don't have enough missile cells why would you purchase a corvette sized platform that has neither the range, sensor footprint or missile loadout? Because they are cheap. Nothing I have seen in this DSR is anything more than cuts to capability.
What a terrible result. The previous government was committed to both the Hunters and SSNs. This is just DOA 2.0. A smokescreen to cut capability. The only difference is that we now face an increasingly dangerous strategic environment. The current mob are clearly not up to the challenge or they have more pressing priorities as compared to national security. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt but I should have known better
I understand the skepticism. Yes, the DSR is short on real, tangible improvements in capability particularly in the short term 0-7 years, which is hyper critical.
Not only that, we are another 12 months in and we now have more new issues than what we started with. We now also have to wait another ~6 months for another review to be completed.
But I am hopeful, perhaps unrealistically something will be acquired and that thing will be useful and be quick to build and bring into service. But time is running out... Building a wonderful force for 2040 is pointless. We don't have that kind of lead time for projects to be underway. If getting ships by 2030 was impossible in 2021/22, then in 2023 it doesn't become more possible.
I would always argue that the submarine fleet is usually a function of the surface fleet and you can't just trade one for the other. But maybe I am wrong in my thinking with that. Maybe these days people go strait into the submarine service, and exit their careers straight out of the ADF. But then the ADF is willing to give away the air gap to the enemy, and subs are open to detection and attack, particularly from the air. Particularly in shallow tropical waters.
Part of USN doctrine is to have a notable surface force. Erasing the surface force IMO make subs more vulnerable.
I read that and I read:
- We need more combatants
- We need more presence
- We need more long range strike
- We need more air defence
- We need more anti-submarine
B-21 is dead in terms of ADF acquisition (one of the few tangible outcomes).
I don't know how the AUSGOV or the ADF is going to hurry block IV F-35's or LRASM/JSM integration. Threaten lockmart with landstrikes?
I would expect the Navy to be closely looking at options that get more VLS and ships into the mix quicker. Which will be very hard. But it is what they are apparently looking at.
I would be very happy to see the RAN get something along the lines of 6-8 GP frigates. Particularly looking at the Type 31 and 30DX (Mogami-class) designs. Overall I'm disappointed in the lack of solid outcomes from the DSR on the naval front but I'm happy with the direction they are going with force structure and it's about time there was a shake up such as this to the way Defence leadership think and do things.
I agree that the review indicates that there will need to be an increase rather than a decrease in the in both the number and the lethality of the surface combat fleet and that it suggests a larger number of smaller vessels in lieu of a few of the larger units is the optimal way to achieve this.
I wonder who will be considered to conduct the 'independent review' into the RAN's surface combat force? From much of what has been suggested in both mainstream and defence media in recent times it fills me with horror to think of some of the possibilities for this task!
With the emphasis on amphibious capability I would be very surprised if the LHDs were to be put up for disposal. I would regard the expanded army amphibious force as complementary assets. IMO, crew requirements for the LHDs are modest for such large ships and as well as their amphibious role they have proven invaluable in disaster relief and as task force flagships. I can also envisage them being given additional roles such as ASW. Nowhere in the public version of the review do I see any suggestion that the future of the LHDs is in question.
It is disappointing that we have to wait another six months for definitive recommendations but at least the review is to be completed this year!
Tas
Taking what they've said at face value there was a ton of uncosted "stuff" that needed to be absorbed in the Defence budget.What a terrible result. The previous government was committed to both the Hunters and SSNs. This is just DOA 2.0. A smokescreen to cut capability. The only difference is that we now face an increasingly dangerous strategic environment. The current mob are clearly not up to the challenge or they have more pressing priorities as compared to national security. I wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt but I should have known better
They had already committed to substantial overall spending increases - which it looks like they're delivering -but the Budget is under pressure and resources aren't unlimited.
What would you do instead if you were trying to be fiscally responsible?
If I were Babcock I would be getting my sales people right on to this. Big opportunity to pick up not only sales in Australia but potentially NZ as well.
I could accept a future surface fleet structure of say 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 6+ GP frigates.
Not sure who would build them though.
I could accept a future surface fleet structure of say 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 6+ GP frigates.
Not sure who would build them though.
Well that’s a discussion for another forum but yes they do need to look at tax reform and the long term sustainability of social programs. As one small example, there is an enormous level of waste in public health which could be reduced if we focused on funding only those elective surgeries that improved patient outcomes.
Last edited:
I don’t disagree with you at all (esp on elective surgeries - bloodsucking drs) but that’s not where the politics is at at the moment.
They’re looking for savings - everywhere - to fix the Budget. “Nice to haves” are being cut across all portfolios. Defence seems to have been largely spared so far, but there’s no reason why it should be entirely immune.
If it is speed of acquisition they are looking for and numerous smaller tier 2 ships…
My speculation
I think it’s likely they divert the Arafura 7-12 order (give 1-6 to border force) and instead build 12 tkms/Luerssen K130s(unknown variant German/Israel) for close to 10 billion, 6 built at civmec post Arafura 1-6 build, 6 k130s simultaneously built at the German yards post 2025 after their own batch 2 variant.
3 hobarts built in Spain for 6-7 billion by early 2032-33
9 hunters reduced to 6 built in Osborne south by early 2040s, saving 10-15 billion with the follow on build likely being the Hobart replacement in the mid 2040s, possibly bae’s type 83.
The fleet in 2035 looking something like 6 gp Anzacs(2 decommissioned from the 8), 6 awd Hobarts, 12 K130 heavily armed corvettes and 3 asw Hunters. a further 3 hunters by early 2040s and 2 JSS plus MCM built at civmec post k130.
Potentially
3GP-3AWD-3ASW-3C+BF based in the west
3GP-3AWD-3ASW-3C+BF based in the east
6C + some Border force(Arafura/Cape) based at upgraded Darwin base
knightrider4
Active Member
Mate a K130 can't make it from Perth to Darwin, you will have to ship it via road!