Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Redlands18]

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

It is only actually 3-4 months, the year is flying by, it's the end of April, due in September.

 

[Volkodav]

Mate a K130 can't make it from Perth to Darwin, you will have to ship it via road!

The K130 has a comparable range to the Arafuras and Capes at a higher (15 vs 12 kt) cruising speed. Hyperbola is uncalled for and not appreciated.

I would object to corvettes replacing Hunters but am perfectly fine getting them instead of OPVs and PBs.

 

[Redlands18]

The K130 has a comparable range to the Arafuras and Capes at a higher (15 vs 12 kt) cruising speed. Hyperbola is uncalled for and not appreciated.

I would object to corvettes replacing Hunters but am perfectly fine getting them instead of OPVs and PBs.

The DSR is calling for Tier 1 and Tier 2 combatants, in the RANs context I would call the K130 a Tier 3 Combatant (back to what Dibb proposed) and I hope they are not calling 2000t Corvettes Tier 2. Would not have a problem with 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 6 GP Frigates as by the time you have the 12 Frigates built, it would be time to replace the Hobarts, maybe with something that has a lot more in common with the Frigates.
4000nm@15kt is a lot better than the River class DEs from what I can gather.

 

[hauritz]

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

IMO the K-130 would be a disaster as a second teir ship. I have my doubts that the JSS will survive the naval review. The army's new emphasis would seem to be littorial operations using large and medium sized landing craft.

I am not sure having an ongoing build program is compatible with cutting back the Hunter numbers. Also Hobart replacements are going to depend on any doctrinal changes that result from the up coming naval review. In other words everything is up in the air.

 

[ngatimozart]

All right calm down and take a breathe. We won't know what the RAN will look like until the quick review of it is out.

 

[icelord]

K-130 would be a disaster as a second teir ship. I have my doubts that the JSS will survive the naval review. The army's new emphasis would seem to be littorial operations using large and medium sized landing craft.

JSS will survive as its central to the WA Dry Dock. To cancel JSS would cause a WA White elephant, which State and Federal Politics would not support.

The smart move for the team looking at JSS is keeping it low profile and chugging along in the background and letting the surface fleet teams eat their young to survive.

 

[Redlands18]

JSS will survive as its central to the WA Dry Dock. To cancel JSS would cause a WA White elephant, which State and Federal Politics would not support.

The smart move for the team looking at JSS is keeping it low profile and chugging along in the background and letting the surface fleet teams eat their young to survive.

Actually the JSS could make even more sense, you need to be able to support a large Amphib fleet.

 

[diggumsbang]

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

Reading between the lines of the DSR, I’m not convinced the K130 offers or aligns with Tier 2 type vessels envisaged. K130 offers air defence of sorts but it is limited to point defence through 2x Sea RAM - with an effective range of around 10km. Sure there are variations of that design such as the Israeli Sa’ar 6 class corvette, but ship range and growth margins alone it seems like increased risk.

Paragraphs 8.23 through 8.25 suggest K130 wouldn’t be an option through those requirements alone and would appear that a larger vessel than a corvette would be on the table. My reading is that the Tier 2 would likely include ESSM, possibly SM-2 and possibly land strike options (TLAM). If that is what is envisaged, then the cell count may well be north of 16, or possibly 32.

 

[Morgo]

Reading between the lines of the DSR, I’m not convinced the K130 offers or aligns with Tier 2 type vessels envisaged. K130 offers air defence of sorts but it is limited to point defence through 2x Sea RAM - with an effective range of around 10km. Sure there are variations of that design such as the Israeli Sa’ar 6 class corvette, but ship range and growth margins alone it seems like increased risk.

Paragraphs 8.23 through 8.25 suggest K130 wouldn’t be an option through those requirements alone and would appear that a larger vessel than a corvette would be on the table. My reading is that the Tier 2 would likely include ESSM, possibly SM-2 and possibly land strike options (TLAM). If that is what is envisaged, then the cell count may well be north of 16, or possibly 32.

I think an AUKUS bulk buy of a variant of the Constellation or Type 31 classes is the most likely outcome, and a good one if they supplant the OPVs.

 

[knightrider4]

The K130 has a comparable range to the Arafuras and Capes at a higher (15 vs 12 kt) cruising speed. Hyperbola is uncalled for and not appreciated.

I would object to corvettes replacing Hunters but am perfectly fine getting them instead of OPVs and PBs.

The cruising range of the K130 is approximately 2500nm. The distance from Perth to Darwin in a direct line is 1429nm. Obviously if travelling in a vessel we are taking a much more indirect route so the distance would be greater. But I'm going to have to argue the point that I dont think it will make it unless it has a refuelling stop. Which then brings us to the uncomfortable realisation as just what utility these vessels bring, yes certainly an upgrade over a constabulary vessel that you will have no argument from me. However I have a sneaking suspicion that any corvette ordered will be to the detriment of the surface combatant force. I just don't see the utility of them to be honest a poor mans warship ordered by those who simply cannot afford proper warships. Again thats fine not everyone can afford a porsche so they make do with a holden. But not being able to afford something is very different to simply not wanting to afford it. Here is the link to the K130 range figure, its from Naval-Technology a reasonable source of information K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The cruising range of the K130 is approximately 2500nm. The distance from Perth to Darwin in a direct line is 1429nm. Obviously if travelling in a vessel we are taking a much more indirect route so the distance would be greater. But I'm going to have to argue the point that I dont think it will make it unless it has a refuelling stop. Which then brings us to the uncomfortable realisation as just what utility these vessels bring, yes certainly an upgrade over a constabulary vessel that you will have no argument from me. However I have a sneaking suspicion that any corvette ordered will be to the detriment of the surface combatant force. I just don't see the utility of them to be honest a poor mans warship ordered by those who simply cannot afford proper warships. Again thats fine not everyone can afford a porsche so they make do with a holden. But not being able to afford something is very different to simply not wanting to afford it. Here is the link to the K130 range figure, its from Naval-Technology a reasonable source of information K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

It's 2259 nautical miles, according to shiptraffic.net's sea distance calculator, and would take 6.3 days at 15 knots. I think this issue is a little overblown. Any design chosen for Australia could have some range added, one would think.

Obviously a corvette would be a trade off. A smaller crew is a big advantage. More hulls than we would otherwise have. I think an open mind is reasonable.

 

[knightrider4]

It's 2259 nautical miles, according to shiptraffic.net's sea distance calculator, and would take 6.3 days at 15 knots. I think this issue is a little overblown. Any design chosen for Australia could have some range added, one would think.

Obviously a corvette would be a trade off. A smaller crew is a big advantage. More hulls than we would otherwise have. I think an open mind is reasonable.

More hulls but capable of what? Minimalist ASW/Air warfare, modest anti surface warfare, modest sensor loadout. I personally would pay money not to be posted on one in a real shooting war. I have a reasonable grasp of political strategy. My personal view is that essentially we are broke and in a mountain of debt with several out of control social programs-think NDIS, medicare etc etc. Compounding the problem which is entirely of our own making is through decades of neglect, is the need to play catch up coinciding with the real risk of war in the years ahead and the aforementioned fiscal obstacles. Consequently the Government of the day not wanting to be seen to do nothing goes for the next best thing which of course is to go down the cheapest route. Hulls in the water yipee look what weve done. Survivable against you know who. Highly unlikely. Thats my view on it anyway. Interesting to see in 6 months.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

More hulls but capable of what? Minimalist ASW/Airwarfare, modest anti surface warfare, modest sensor loadout. I personally would pay money not to be posted on one in a real shooting war.

I guess I would have preferred to be on a battleship than a corvette in WW2 too. Limited capabilities, yes, but overmatch for hostile "fishing" boats, a deterrent to hostile intent, surveillance, sovereignty assertion. I don't know - guess we'll see what the review says.

 

[Wombat000]

I’m somewhat reluctant to ask this, as I do not want to start a fantasy fleet drama.
prev I was of the opinion that F35Bs were expensive & impractical considering the relatively benign environment.
always the presumption of US support, but that might be unrealistic.

govt is developing a ‘short sharp‘ surface fleet review, considering the changed environment. - I’m guessing it’s seeking hulls and VLS boosting.

looking at the perhaps prospect of a few/several hulls of some description and the treasure required for them, is it worth re-visiting the question of air capability for the LHDs?

I foresee the benefits of OTH sensor reach and targeting, releasing RAAF tankers & A models from the struggling extended range CAP issues so as they can concentrate on actual RAAFie things, extra fleet air launched missile defence to supplement those limited VLS magazines & perhaps add a more distant defensive layer negating escort war shots?
would the actual cost of modifying LHDs be a % of just one vessel to be/if proposed by the review?

accepting the actual cost of the aircraft, might that be better value bang for buck for the expeditionary fleet?
assuming both the LHDs are not concurrently tasked and full of amphib kit.

would a deployed amphib operation actually in all practicality resemble the Falklands, and could that have been achieved without persistent and practical air cover, not just the landings but also the proximity transit?
previously it was kinda fantasy but is it actually a very practical enabler?

food for thought?

** I apologise profusely in advance if mods want to slap me down.

 

[knightrider4]

I’m somewhat reluctant to ask this, as I do not want to start a fantasy fleet drama.
prev I was of the opinion that F35Bs were expensive & impractical considering the relatively benign environment.
always the presumption of US support, but that might be unrealistic.

govt is developing a ‘short sharp‘ surface fleet review, considering the changed environment. - I’m guessing it’s seeking hulls and VLS boosting.

looking at the perhaps prospect of a few/several hulls of some description and the treasure required for them, is it worth re-visiting the question of air capability for the LHDs?

I foresee the benefits of OTH sensor reach and targeting, releasing RAAF tankers & A models from the struggling extended range CAP issues so as they can concentrate on actual RAAFie things, extra fleet air launched missile defence to supplement those limited VLS magazines & perhaps add a more distant defensive layer negating escort war shots?
would the actual cost of modifying LHDs be a % of just one vessel to be/if proposed by the review?

accepting the actual cost of the aircraft, might that be better value bang for buck for the expeditionary fleet?
assuming both the LHDs are not concurrently tasked and full of amphib kit.

would a deployed amphib operation actually in all practicality resemble the Falklands, and could that have been achieved without persistent and practical air cover, not just the landings but also the proximity transit?
previously it was kinda fantasy but is it actually a very practical enabler?

food for thought?

** I apologise profusely in advance if mods want to slap me down.

Don't apologise its like grovelling. If you have done nothing wrong then leave it at that. So it sounds like your heading down the f-35B and LHD combo. You probably will get a slap but thats ok LOL. That scenario has been done to death I'm afraid and if it ever did come to fruition which it wont then how do you provide the escorts? A k130 with a couple of SEA RAM, best of luck my friend. No an at sea fast jet capability whilst there certainly is a need will never happen because its going to cost more money than the government is prepared to pay.

 

[knightrider4]

It's 2259 nautical miles, according to shiptraffic.net's sea distance calculator, and would take 6.3 days at 15 knots. I think this issue is a little overblown. Any design chosen for Australia could have some range added, one would think.

Obviously a corvette would be a trade off. A smaller crew is a big advantage. More hulls than we would otherwise have. I think an open mind is reasonable.

Yes but more hulls of a dubious capability is useful how? There is no Corvette design that I'm aware of that would survive past the initial engagement against an enemy we will be facing. The SAAR 5 is probably the most capable but it was never designed to survive in a missile rich environment What we will face if the worst happens will be an overwhelming strike, they will seek to overwhelm us with numbers of missiles through various platforms at once. The only upside of a corvettes small crew number is less people onboard who will lose their lives.

 

[Wombat000]

It’s the LHD already in service, they will have a defence suit and escort already or they won’t.
point is the defence/escort liability cost is the same.

will an air launched defence layer be cheaper & reloadable than a fully crewed escort ship, potentially saving various escorts using their VLS rounds, extending the fleet persistence in the AO? Same for the expenses for RAAF to dedicate tankers & fighters.
will counter air actually mitigate the fleet being effectively targeted to begin with?

will it give the commander an extended range ISR AEW targeting asset?

will the conversion cost be less than one single crewed ‘corvette’ type ship?

will Army even get tasked to an amphib mission without air cover? Perhaps the USN will be available?

thanks.

 

[Stampede]

I’m somewhat reluctant to ask this, as I do not want to start a fantasy fleet drama.
prev I was of the opinion that F35Bs were expensive & impractical considering the relatively benign environment.
always the presumption of US support, but that might be unrealistic.

govt is developing a ‘short sharp‘ surface fleet review, considering the changed environment. - I’m guessing it’s seeking hulls and VLS boosting.

looking at the perhaps prospect of a few/several hulls of some description and the treasure required for them, is it worth re-visiting the question of air capability for the LHDs?

I foresee the benefits of OTH sensor reach and targeting, releasing RAAF tankers & A models from the struggling extended range CAP issues so as they can concentrate on actual RAAFie things, extra fleet air launched missile defence to supplement those limited VLS magazines & perhaps add a more distant defensive layer negating escort war shots?
would the actual cost of modifying LHDs be a % of just one vessel to be/if proposed by the review?

accepting the actual cost of the aircraft, might that be better value bang for buck for the expeditionary fleet?
assuming both the LHDs are not concurrently tasked and full of amphib kit.

would a deployed amphib operation actually in all practicality resemble the Falklands, and could that have been achieved without persistent and practical air cover, not just the landings but also the proximity transit?
previously it was kinda fantasy but is it actually a very practical enabler?

food for thought?

** I apologise profusely in advance if mods want to slap me down.

My take is Australia would be one of the most likely candidates in the world for such a capability on so many levels.
Arguments for and against always come out as a yes for said capability in my book.
Reading between the lines of the DSR it kind of implies a place for such capability.
We'll see what eventuates.

Cheers S

 

[knightrider4]

It’s the LHD already in service, they will have a defence suit and escort already or they won’t.
point is the defence/escort liability cost is the same.

will an air launched defence layer be cheaper than a fully crewed escort ship, potentially saving various escorts using their VLS rounds, extending the fleet persistence in the AO? Same for the expenses for RAAF to dedicate tankers & fighters.
will counter air actually mitigate the fleet being effectively targeted to begin with?

will it give the commander an extended range ISR AEW targeting asset?

will the conversion cost be less than one single crewed ‘corvette’ type ship?

will Army even get tasked to an amphib mission without air cover? Perhaps the USN will be available?

thanks.

Well I'm not sure I get what your saying but I'll give it a go. The LHD as they currently stand cannot deploy fast jets the fuel bunkerage and weapon stowage is not fit for purpose. They were never really designed for fast jet operations. They carry a limited air component lets say a realistic number would be 6 to 8 aircraft. Then there are the enablers, where does your early warning come from and ASW? How many effective sorties will be generated by so few aircraft? Those 6-8 F-35 are going to consume an awful lot of fuel where does it get replenished remember we only have two AOR and these will have an already heavy burden. No you can't sea based fast jets on the cheap. To get full benefit you need a proper carrier and all the requisite escorts that entails and whether that be a dedicated carrier or an LHD would stretch us to breaking point. By that I mean just the escort requirements alone would mean we have nothing else available for any meaningful taskings. Hope that answers your question.

 

[Volkodav]

The cruising range of the K130 is approximately 2500nm. The distance from Perth to Darwin in a direct line is 1429nm. Obviously if travelling in a vessel we are taking a much more indirect route so the distance would be greater. But I'm going to have to argue the point that I dont think it will make it unless it has a refuelling stop. Which then brings us to the uncomfortable realisation as just what utility these vessels bring, yes certainly an upgrade over a constabulary vessel that you will have no argument from me. However I have a sneaking suspicion that any corvette ordered will be to the detriment of the surface combatant force. I just don't see the utility of them to be honest a poor mans warship ordered by those who simply cannot afford proper warships. Again thats fine not everyone can afford a porsche so they make do with a holden. But not being able to afford something is very different to simply not wanting to afford it. Here is the link to the K130 range figure, its from Naval-Technology a reasonable source of information K130 Braunschweig Class Corvette - Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)

Weird, both the Luerssen and the achived B&V sites say 4000Nm, but what would they know, they only build the things.

Your linked article does say "more than 2500Nm" and 4000 is definately more than 2500, so I can't say it's wrong.