Also gotta wonder about putting C-Dome on the amphibs and tankers. Even though it's likely less capable than ESSM it'd still be a big step up over Phalanx...
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
To me at least, wouldn't it make the most sense to just focus on making Arafura really good at its role? I.e. Maritime security?
It can be either a brilliant, very capable OPV or a below average, slow and vulnerable corvette ...
Ships like the MMPV, Saar 6 and K130 all make absolutely zero sense in our geography.
The Arafura Sea alone is larger than both the Baltic Sea and Black Sea.
The Coral Sea alone is almost double the size of the entire Mediterranean Sea.
Corvettes are not designed for our kind of environment, and that's even before we consider presence beyond the seas right on our doorstep.
It can be either a brilliant, very capable OPV or a below average, slow and vulnerable corvette ...
Ships like the MMPV, Saar 6 and K130 all make absolutely zero sense in our geography.
The Arafura Sea alone is larger than both the Baltic Sea and Black Sea.
The Coral Sea alone is almost double the size of the entire Mediterranean Sea.
Corvettes are not designed for our kind of environment, and that's even before we consider presence beyond the seas right on our doorstep.
But it doesn't fit.
If we ever envisaged fitting these systems we would have to build the 90m OPV, which could have embarked these systems, without giving up the flight deck and completely compromising the entire mission of the OPV while also not performing any other mission adquiately. We even further modified the Arafura's to get the RHIB capability that was inherent in the 90m OPV, which further compromised the weapons capability of the platform.
But what is capable? We can fit NSM onto a bushmaster, probably onto a LARC-V, but is it capable of using it? We can fit phalanx to a truck, but putting that truck onto a lcm isn't making it a CIWS on a naval platform. Carrying any of these would be for decorative purposes only. We might as well fit them with mock ups.
At the moment the OPV's have no weapon larger than a .50 cal. We hope, we can fit them with a 25mm gun.
It beyond political limitations. We are talking about impossible due to engineering and physics. Probably more than that, time, money and engineering capability to mad max the OPV's into some sort of shitty naval technical with a C-dome container launcher on the back isn't possible either.
It would in fact be more doable to refit a Sydney ferry or the spirt of Tasmania with the weapon systems than the OPV. They could completely give up their normal role as ferries so all of the space, power, weight etc could go to supporting these systems.
I don't see it as this. Rudd announce the 20 OCV back in 2009. Sea1180 was a valid project that wasn't high profile enough to get the politcians messing in it. They, now liberal government tended for 12 OPVs. I don't see a whole bunch of political interference. If anyone is to blame it would appear to be defence.
If anyone is to blame for the OPV's, it is squarely defence. Defences fingerprints are all over it, as the audit office shows.
Of all the ships offered, we chose the least combat capable. A ship that Brunei got because the corvettes they originally ordered were too capable and sold to Indonesia for half price brand new, by Lurrsen.
Deep dive into Sea 1180's OPV - Australian Defence Magazine
capability discussion of offshore patrol vessel program
www.australiandefence.com.au
Lurrsen/Damen/Fassmer all have more capable OPV and small ship platforms. 90m is a much more suitable size for OPV, and all three have capable ships at that size. Most of them are the OPV design, enlarged to take on these weapons systems and the things required for them to operate. So power, weight, space, crew etc.
When I say more capable, 8-16 VLS, 4-8 NSM, 76mm main gun, CIWS (some for and aft), a hanger, towed array, bow sonar, 2 x 20-30mm guns RWS, etc. Its not just bolting on the weapon system, its integrating it, it having crew to maintain and operate it, its sensors to make it useful, it power to run it. Then with the realisation of that we have less than 10 years, we could start refitting these ships over the next ~5 years with the systems and continue to build them with them integrated from the begining.
Currently we are building them with nothing more than a machine gun.
C-Dome with nothing else is a terrible idea. I would rather nothing fitted and the OPV be able to do their primary patrol mission and use Camcopters from the helo deck. At least they would have some situational awareness.
If we want something more capable, then dispose of the Arafuras. Don't change them into shitty naval technicals, with weapon systems grafted onto helo pads that were never designed for weapons. Its a waste of time money and crew.
Take that crew and put them on a fully armed OPV that has more firepower than an Anzac.
Last edited:
buffy9
Well-Known Member
Size matters in all aspects, attempting to up arm the OPVs or the idea of corvettes doesn't achieve anything more than diverting resources from fleet assets that can actually do the full range of tasks required of a major combatant. I can spend $15B building, arming and crewing corvettes that either can't get to the fight, or which drain the Defence budget during peacetime because twice the maintenance/berthing/crewing is required.
The OPVs, in my view, use less manpower and achieve their intended role, whilst providing a more hospitable vessel for crew and a platform for training future commanders. The additional funds could be invested into actually capable vessels like FFG, or into ancillaries that can provide them with a niche way to contribute to the fight (as SURTASS-E or mine warfare modules seem to indicate).
Unpopular opinion maybe, but the additional resources we throw at this are less resources for vessels that actually make an enemy concerned that they are in theatre. The key being that they are actually in theatre.
Last edited:
Build schedule for Saar 6 Corvette.
First laid down in early 2018, three now complete and commissioned with a forth to join the fleet hopefully the year.
Not bad and suggest a handy bit of kit.
Now I don't know what's in the Fleet review other than the suggestion of a two tier fleet and the calculated guess of more vessels. Read between the lines.
So pragmatic achievable vessels in the water asap with more capability than the OPV's.
DSR wants
Robust capability before 2030.
Then planning for the next period beyond that....
That's what's stated and my guess thats what's on the shopping list.
This timetable is not going to be friendly to new frigate/ destroyer builds this side of 2030 no matter what we think of their attributes.
My bet, a corvette sized vessel in the 2000t , 90 m class.
Will it be Saar6, MMPV or something else, I don't know other than it will be a tight time table and Australianising will be difficult due to time constraints to get a platform in the water asap.
It would be nice if we could employ existing weapons and sensors currently in service across the fleet but as I said, Australianising may not fit the time frame.
We have created a mess with little time to fix.
Cheers S
First laid down in early 2018, three now complete and commissioned with a forth to join the fleet hopefully the year.
Not bad and suggest a handy bit of kit.
Now I don't know what's in the Fleet review other than the suggestion of a two tier fleet and the calculated guess of more vessels. Read between the lines.
So pragmatic achievable vessels in the water asap with more capability than the OPV's.
DSR wants
Robust capability before 2030.
Then planning for the next period beyond that....
That's what's stated and my guess thats what's on the shopping list.
This timetable is not going to be friendly to new frigate/ destroyer builds this side of 2030 no matter what we think of their attributes.
My bet, a corvette sized vessel in the 2000t , 90 m class.
Will it be Saar6, MMPV or something else, I don't know other than it will be a tight time table and Australianising will be difficult due to time constraints to get a platform in the water asap.
It would be nice if we could employ existing weapons and sensors currently in service across the fleet but as I said, Australianising may not fit the time frame.
We have created a mess with little time to fix.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
One would probably need to read through the contract signed in Jan 2018 in detail to see what clauses there are to cancel a contract, and/or what the penalties would be for early cancellation. I believe the entire contract was to be worth AUD$3.58 bil. so presumably it would be less if cancelled with half the planned vessels ordered.
What I would be concerned with if there is a plan for early cancellation, is what would happen next? The first six vessels are already in various stages of construction or fitting out. Now would be the time that some of the long lead items for the next set of Arafura-class OPV's to be built would have been ordered and in production.
If all of a sudden the next sets of OPV's were cancelled and a different design selected for production, how long before that selection (including detailed design and planned fitout) would be completed? Following that, how long would it take for the long lead items for a different design to be ready, as well as how soon could first steel on the lead ship could be cut? I suspect that there would likely be a gap of at least a few years between when the last of the Arafura-class OPV's currently under construction would be completed, and construction of an alternate design could be started.
Pretty much the only ways to prevent such a gap (and therefore loss of workforce skill and personnel due to the yard being idled) is either already have a fitted out replacement design picked out and ready for immediate contracting and ordering, or keep production of the OPV's going whilst a new/different design and fitout is being selected and contracted.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something to keep in mind when referencing the Saar 6-class FSG order is that whilst the vessels were laid down in 2018 (early 2018 for the first two vessels at least) and delivered not quite three years later, they were ordered in 2015.
Where Australia stands in all this is that we do not know what, if anything, will be ordered for the RAN in an attempt to increase the combatant fleet size in the near future. A selection process would likely be required prior to any contracts being signed and/or orders placed, and it would only be after the contracting and orders were placed would future Australian vessels get build slots in any production queue.
In short, even if Australia were to decide to order overseas production of corvettes from an active yard, they would most likely still not be in RAN service before 2030, never mind whether or not they would be suitable for the RAN's areas of interest.
Also with upgrades to fuel depots, infrastructure and other facilities in Darwin and Cairns, basing/operating/maintaining 80-90m opvs/corvettes out of the north is doable in the near future. 130-140m gpf‘s are not atm. With the new 250m wharf at HMAS Coonawarra and existing facilities, it could host 4-6 80-90m opvs/corvettes + 8 or so cape class. Fort Hill / Stokes Hill and the potential facilities around the bend also look like future opportunities for the ran.
The 7-7,500km range + 22-26knt speed now doesn’t seem that bad when you consider anzacs homeport at Fleet base east/west.
The 7-7,500km range + 22-26knt speed now doesn’t seem that bad when you consider anzacs homeport at Fleet base east/west.
At this stage that is effectively impossible, we would build the remaining ships it would cost more to cancel than build out the remaining.
There is no work for these yards to pick up on, and the cancellation for the contracts (long lead items on all 12 would be already ordered and most likely stacking up in warehouses awaiting imminent delivery) and sunk costs to cancel a project like that that was put through as a single batch order would be as much as building the ships. So its not just the cost, it would be votes, it would be unhappy businesses and contractors slammed to the wall, WA would have no steel ready project to pick up on. Basically nightmare stuff, it cannot be cancelled.
What is most likely (and widely speculated in the press) at this stage is Arafura is completed, Navy brings them into service, writes the SOP, then handed over to Border force. The very elements that make them unsuitable for the Navy make them perfect for Border force. They could also be sold/gifted (say 4-6) to places like Philippines, Malaysia, PNG (maybe), Fiji (maybe), Ukraine. Fiji/PNG really needs a boat more capable than the Guardian ones, and they could crew such a ship, but AusGov would need to probably look after maintenance and upgrades, which is a deal IMO. PNG is a country with more than twice the population of New Zealand, and some of the most strategic waters in SEA. Rather than forward basing Australian crews there, why not let the PNG and Fijian guys crew the dam ships. This removes any new class from being a OPV, that job is well handle going forward by border force, and that includes non-military operations like whaling-green peace type missions, far flung boat people stuff, picking up lost fishermen from Ashmore, European millionaires on solo yacht trips, supporting Antarctic/island research etc. Where having a non military ship is important.
This would clear the decks for a proper emergency small ship build. Say 6-8 proper small combatant capable ships. Corvette/small frigate. 16 vls, 8 anti ship, CIWS, MH60R+ drone, torpedo's, towed array, 8000km+ 45 day endurance. Your Avante/Saar, K130, Gowind etc etc.. Plenty to choose from. ~100m 2000-3500t. They would be mostly based in WA, but some perhaps east coast and maybe one rotationally forward at Sembawang or Lumut.
I do not see Australia ordering from overseas yards. It defeats the purpose going forwards of this. This is not able a single niche capability. Its about sustainable building in the two military ship yards Australia has committed to operate.
It appears the operation before 2030 is not important to Australia. It is clear now we will not meet that target date for any in-service capability. If there is a open realignment of the Collins LOTE, then it will be more about covering holes that develop in in the plan within the RAN from 2025-2035.
Australia can no longer presume a normal world order going forward. If things go hot between the US and China, Australia will not have the power/capability to intervene, we are too far away and too small. But we cannot expect that the US and China engaging in the a level of war not seen possibly ever, will allow Australia to rely on defence suppliers 10,000 miles away like we can in peace time. Defence suppliers will likely either supplying their own national needs, or the Americans, or possibly not existing. We need to try to sovereignty up our capabilities.
Its not even really about China anymore, its about Chaos. The Nuclear submarines won't arrive before peak China tensions either. We have missed the prepare for war boat, we are now trying to catch the prepare for post conflict chaos.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
TBH I could see this happening, which is not at all the same as thinking it would be a good idea. Rather, if there is a conflux of pressure to order something, anything, to bulk up the perceived size of the RAN's combatant forces and offers from overseas yards and/or their agents to build warships for Australia, whilst being unspecific on whether or not ready for service warships could be ready in the needed time frame, I could see it happening. It is an unfortunate reality that there are a number of examples of Australian defence procurement ordering kit with an expected in service date, and not actually having the kit ready until years later, if ever.
I have to state that I disagree. If there is an active shooting war that breaks out between the US and PRC, I believe that Australia will have to intervene and become involved, simply due to Australian interests being impacted. In the event of a direct conflict between the US and PRC, the US will naturally want to cut or control as much of the PRC's SLOC as possible, whilst the PRC will seek to seize and control those same SLOC, and some of those SLOC as also used by many other trading nations, including Australia. I do not foresee Australia being able to just sit back and watch if the PRC attempts to seize control of SLOC that Australian trade to Europe, Africa and Asia passes through. Australian forces most likely would not be operating alone, but I do believe there would be a presence and involvement.
Yes, not a friendly time frame however you cut it getting capability this side of 2030.
There will be compromise one way or the other.
Either a gunned up and compromised 80m OPV which may be more of a liability rather than asset, or alternativly a larger more capable Class of vessel slow to enter services.
This would then beg the question why not just focus in the Hunter class.
Working with existing supply chains for the Arafura Class,how big a vessel could the same systems of the 80 m OPV be utilised in a larger vessel within the lurrsen range.
Engine, gear box ,combat system, all the key stuff?
Plus additional bunks and hotel services.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not honestly think it would be a choice of what to compromise on as things realistically take too long to be carried out for an in-service date of 2030.
The OPV's are already under construction and kit for them have been ordered. Get them in service and use them for what they were intended for and capable of
If a coherent future fleet structure can be planned out, which would also be able to survive changes in gov't, and this future fleet calls for more/more varied types of MFU's, then start the planning process for other warships. Possibly start a programme for the Hobart-class replacement and/or a future combatant build programme to start/run in the Civmec facilities following the end of the Arafura-class build.
What I am concerned about, particularly with some of the changes mentioned in the DSR is that it seems much of the planned force structure is to be changed and that will impact both demand for personnel as well as industry. Too dramatic or ill-considered, and such changes could reduce the pool of Australian personnel, cause a need for a future surge in personnel requirement and training, gut industry (again...) or any one of a number of other issues.
Right now it things do seem in some respects similar to the mid-1930's but Australia still should not be attempting to rush things trying to get something, anything, ready by 2030, at the expense of also having a viable force between 2030-2035 or 2040.
Absolutely right.
Build as many of them as quickly as you can. The design is ready to go.
While you build the first two or three, do the design work for an AWD version. Then build those as quickly as you can.
Accept that to maintain continuous shipbuilding we need a larger fleet of tier one vessels.
Rinse and repeat.
I would suggest that the 12V1163 engines in the Arafura would be at their limit and not suitable for utilisation in a larger platform without significantly impacting on speed.
Do you have access to all specifications of the missile, making you an expert on it?
Who says that corvettes are not designed for the Australian environment? A corvette can be designed to meet Australian requirements, if the govt decides to go down that path.
Why would you want that? It's range alone doesn't meet Australian requirements. It's a ship built for European, Mediterranean, and Red Sea conditions, definitely not for the vastness of the Indo - Pacific.
Pushing the final naval review another 6 months clears out the 2027 imperative, we are so absolutely going to miss it, I think not even the Spanish think they could deliver anything relevant to us in the remaining timeframe.
Australia's SLOC cannot be blocked by China. Australia is surrounded by the largest oceans on the planet and is not limited by choke points like the canals or straits.
The global key choke points are nearby Australia, not ones that Australia relies on for its own trade.
As has been pointed out, nearly all of our vulnerable trade is with China. Thanks to a lack of a EU FTA, a one-sided FTA with the US that actually saw trade decrease between the two countries, nearly all of Australia's trade is with China. Japan and South Korea are other key trading partners, but again, we are very far away. London and Seattle is closer to Shanghai than Sydney is. China is a problem, but we are very, very far away from our problem
Well we won't be doing anything with submarines or ships. We won't have any in the water. The US, Japan, South Korea and China will have to fend for themselves.
I imagine Europe will be quite anxious when the US withdraws all of its people (over 100,000 military), all of its equipment, planes, tanks, munitions, radars, all of its navy from Europe and further abroad, from the Atlantic ocean. The withdrawal won't be slow either. Rammstein/Lakenheath airbase will look like Kabul airport post evacuation.
I will imagine Europe will have to fend for itself. While also being asked to assist the US fight a high intensity peer war.
With the Hobarts out of action in any deployable scenario, we could maybe sustain a single deployed Anzac to Indonesia/Singapore while the rest are getting upgraded and life extended?
Australia won't be sitting on the side, no doubt we will have our aircraft up north, perhaps P8's flying out of Japan. But I think we have made it very clear to the Americans, we have huge issues with our ships and submarines, and not from just lack of trying either.
Good thing we are 9000km away from China, with buffer states including the US, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia between Australia and them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I do wonder about Europe’s concerns wrt a massive US redeployment to Asia-Pacific. Given the pathetic performance of the Russian military in the Ukraine perhaps they shouldn’t be except for their submarine and nuclear capabilities. Likely they are more concerned about a collapse of world trade in the event of a US-China conflict (along with many others).
What makes sense to me… and is the easiest path forward for government.
Luerssen(designer) built at CIVMEC(Henderson)
-6 Luerssen Arafura OPV by 2026 with interim modular systems followed by 6-12 Luerssen TBD Corvettes/Light Frigates, Entry from 2027
Cancelling the last 6 Arafuras completely to go with another build, eg Type 31, sadly I don’t think is on the cards. To cancel may cost mega $$$.
BAE(designer) built at ANI(Osborne South)
-6 BAE Hunter Type 26 ASW(reduced from 9) by 2041 followed by 6 BAE Type 83 AWD, Entry from 2044
2035 RAN
3(6*) Hobarts, 1-2 Virginias, 4-5 Collins, 2 Hunters, 5-6 Anzacs, 6 Arafuras, 2-3 Corvettes/Light Frigates
2045 RAN
3-4 Hobarts, 3-5 Virginias, 1 Aukus, 6 Hunters, 6-12 Corvettes or Light Frigates
6 Arafura to BF or sold off. All Anzacs decommissioned, possibly all Collins.
2055 RAN
2-3 Virginias, 4-5 Aukus, 5-6 Hunters, 6-12 Corvettes/Light Frigates, 4-5 Type 83
*Still think it would be a good deal to go with navantias offer of 3 extra Hobarts by 2032/33 for 6 billion and get Anzacs out sooner + corvettes/lVs crewed.
Luerssen(designer) built at CIVMEC(Henderson)
-6 Luerssen Arafura OPV by 2026 with interim modular systems followed by 6-12 Luerssen TBD Corvettes/Light Frigates, Entry from 2027
Cancelling the last 6 Arafuras completely to go with another build, eg Type 31, sadly I don’t think is on the cards. To cancel may cost mega $$$.
BAE(designer) built at ANI(Osborne South)
-6 BAE Hunter Type 26 ASW(reduced from 9) by 2041 followed by 6 BAE Type 83 AWD, Entry from 2044
2035 RAN
3(6*) Hobarts, 1-2 Virginias, 4-5 Collins, 2 Hunters, 5-6 Anzacs, 6 Arafuras, 2-3 Corvettes/Light Frigates
2045 RAN
3-4 Hobarts, 3-5 Virginias, 1 Aukus, 6 Hunters, 6-12 Corvettes or Light Frigates
6 Arafura to BF or sold off. All Anzacs decommissioned, possibly all Collins.
2055 RAN
2-3 Virginias, 4-5 Aukus, 5-6 Hunters, 6-12 Corvettes/Light Frigates, 4-5 Type 83
*Still think it would be a good deal to go with navantias offer of 3 extra Hobarts by 2032/33 for 6 billion and get Anzacs out sooner + corvettes/lVs crewed.
The type 83 destroyer more than likely to be a development of the type 45 with upgraded sensor array and missiles but not the same family of which as we currently have on the Anzac ,Hobart and future Hunter class ,it might be interesting if there was some agreement on joint design and development as per AUKUS ,but little is known of type 83 specifications nor what the R.A.N may require to know if they will be similar