Like the type 26, we will modify it. It’s the Type 83 or the DDGX, doubt we stray away from our Aukus partners 10-20 years from now.
Designing and building our own would better…
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Designing and building our own would better…
Of course we didn’t envisage them having such systems. We didn’t envisage them being targetted by the PLAN during combat operations either… We lived in some sort of “bubble of naivety” where we were told that more than 50% of our naval fleet wouldn’t be targeted during times of conflict so therefore they could be armed with nothing. Fortuntely wiser heads seem to have come along since those days…
However, even so it hardly “compromises the entire mission of the OPV”. That’s being just a tad melodramatic. At worst a SAM on the flight deck prevents UAS usage whilst it is bolted on. It doesn‘t prevent radar (in fact it enhances radar surveillance I’d suggest), EW or EO/IR surveillance. It doesn’t prevent patrolling, it doesn’t prevent RHiB usage, boarding operations and so on.
The current Armidales and Capes don’t even HAVE flight decks, let alone ship-borne UAS, unless there is some nano hand launched and recovered system on-board, which wouldn’t be effected by such a system either.
So you’re suggesting an Arafura couldn’t use a system that has been purposefully designed to be used in that exact way? Why?
Well defence has announced they will be fitted with a Typhoon 25mm as an interim gun. That is literally all defence has said on the topic. How much work that takes is unknown (to me at least) at present. I’d suggest as it is going to be installed in the location originally intended for a more complex weapon, that required power and perhaps cooling is already present and unless RAN decide the weapon needs to be integrated with the Arafura combat system then installation will be realtovely straight forward given it can be used in ‘standalone’ configuration, meaning all it needs is to be bolted to the deck, power connected and ammunition supplied.
If adding C-Dome defies physics, then someone should probably let Rafael know, because they seem to think it doesn’t…
Do you actually remember the capability from the offshore combat vessel that RAN required? i’m sure Volk can recall the specifics but RAN wanted a small missile equipped combat vessel, able to employ a mission package as it’s primary ‘weapon’. On top of this, RAN wanted this vessel to be capable of combatting low to medium air, surface and sub-surface threats…
Semaphore: Australian Offshore Combatant Vessels | Royal Australian Navy
Royal Australian Navy
Unfortunately somehow that turned into the Arafura class. A cheaper, smaller sized fleet of vessels (of the same rough displacement) with virtually no ability to combat anything. it also went from 20 to 12. This was defence’s fault you say? Or was it Government direction to get a design into service that could advance the planned national shipbuilding strategy?
Again I say the point is being missed. That point is RAN’s new strategic direction to undertake immediate enhancements to the force in being (0 to 3 years) and develop the objective integrated force. (3 - 7 years).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 programwww.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.
You could replace them with an Arleigh Burke or a Hunter if you want (and find the money and workforce) and have all the combat capability in the world.
But not one of those will be in-service in less than 3 years... Short of acquiring second-hand ships, no new ships will be in-service in time to meet RAN strategic direction of enhancing the force in being.
Arafuras will.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, Australia's SLOC can indeed be blocked. Not sure what the source of the map is, but it is an incomplete or inaccurate map. Given what is missing, namely the SLOC between Australia and most of Asia and the reality that about half of Australia's top ten international trading partners are in those parts of Asia...
Back in 2016, it was estimated that two-thirds of Australian exports passed through the SCS, albeit much of that was to China. Per the value numbers from 2022 and excluding trade with mainland China and Hong Kong, over 27% of Australian exports transited through the SCS or adjacent SLOC. This figure covers exports to Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand. If one were to include exports to mainland China and Hong Kong, then the figure jumps up to nearly 55% of Australian exports. Data for 2022 can be found here.
Not all of Australia's trade is in or goes through the SCS but a major portion of it certainly does and therefore events and activities which impact those SLOC will impact Australia.
No new ship will be built with the Type 45's propulsion system, main gun, or some of its other systems. Different propulsion, sensors, weapons, etc. . . . may be just the hull left.
Those 100,000 are mostly support units, such as medical (big US military hospitals), logistics, maintenance, etc. They're not in Europe to fight, but to support US deployments to the Middle East, Africa, etc. I don't see them all being withdrawn. How would the USA support forces in the Indian Ocean, for example, without them? Consider the distance from the US east coast to India. It's less than going the other way, & those support facilities in Europe, surrounded by friendly armed forces & economies, are ideally placed. That's not accidental.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Are you thinking no IEP or just a different IEP from the Type 45? The QE class IEP seems to be ok (except for the shaft alignment issues).
I guess the question for myself is how reasonable is expectation of getting a warship this side of 2030.
To clarify warship, something more capable than the Arafura Class but not the size of an ANZAC .
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The phrase, "a snowball's chance in hell," comes to mind.
Australia has a few options if new/more warships are to be brought into the fleet, however there are time constraints for all the options. First, a new design created and fitted out using kit that Australia already has in service and therefore can use and support, but that would take time to determine what should go into the design and fitout, then have the detailed design work completed prior to construction. The second option would be to take an existing design and have it's fitout modified/Australianized so that the vessel is fitted and armed with kit that Australia has and can support. A third potential option would be for Australia to order an existing design and armed/fitted with whatever systems were originally included. This could potentially see warships delivered faster, particularly if ordered from a 'hot' yard that already has vessel production underway or just finishing a build order but with spare capacity. However if a new class of vessel were to be fitted out with weapons, sensors and CMS that is new/unfamiliar to the RAN, there would be time required and a learning curve before the RAN and Australia would be able to establish everything required to maintain and support the vessels.
Good day folks
We are getting back to looking at platforms that don't currently exists (i.e the Type 8X destroyer ...... noting all we have are renderings of an idea ... not a design) and we are looking at Corvettes without considering the capability the design will require such as range, armament, speed, combat system and sensors. This is because the requirements have not been established. All we really know is the corvette is based on the idea more small (what ever small means) is better than big if you get more of them. There are no established requirements.
Requirements can be a moving feast, can take a lot of time to agree and it is possible the RAN end up in the DDL situation again .... a long drawn our process to establish the design, lots of design 'creep' ..... with the potential it gets canned because it is too risky and expensive.
Sadly we will have to wait for the 'ships' review that has now been decided upon. Can I susggest that when you consider this you look at potential need of the service (the discussion on SLOC's and survivability are important) rather than looking for a design that looks cool (i.e The SAAR is impressive but is designed for operation in the waters adjacent to Israel .... that would limit its utility to the RAN) or starting to consider how soon a corvette can be delivered. Please also look at Australia's ability to build a new class (the Corvette) and the need for a lot more infrastructure in either WA or SA (I suspect that any Corvette may come out of WA).
When suggesting fleet composition can you please consider all this will take time noting the design finalisation could take years (noting we have to wait for the review before any other work can start) .... as well the establishment of the logistics to provide the systems and sensors. So please take a realistic view of how soon stuff can get done. Navantia, and others, may claim they can provides somethign in 'X' years but expericance shows such predictions can be optimistic.
As an example ..... Look at the Type 31 (which is progressing at pace), the design was shortlisted in December 2018, selected in September 2019 (but first ship ordered in November 2019) with first steel cut in 2021 (noting the UK do have more established shipyards than Australia at the moment) and the keel laid in April 2022. The vessel is predicted to be 'in service' by 2027. These are less complext than the T26 and are using existing contruction yards (that have a skilled workforce) and it is (opimisitically) going to take over 9 years from shortlsiting to get the first hull to sea. ...... Australia has not even decided what it wants to build yet.
alexsa
We are getting back to looking at platforms that don't currently exists (i.e the Type 8X destroyer ...... noting all we have are renderings of an idea ... not a design) and we are looking at Corvettes without considering the capability the design will require such as range, armament, speed, combat system and sensors. This is because the requirements have not been established. All we really know is the corvette is based on the idea more small (what ever small means) is better than big if you get more of them. There are no established requirements.
Requirements can be a moving feast, can take a lot of time to agree and it is possible the RAN end up in the DDL situation again .... a long drawn our process to establish the design, lots of design 'creep' ..... with the potential it gets canned because it is too risky and expensive.
Sadly we will have to wait for the 'ships' review that has now been decided upon. Can I susggest that when you consider this you look at potential need of the service (the discussion on SLOC's and survivability are important) rather than looking for a design that looks cool (i.e The SAAR is impressive but is designed for operation in the waters adjacent to Israel .... that would limit its utility to the RAN) or starting to consider how soon a corvette can be delivered. Please also look at Australia's ability to build a new class (the Corvette) and the need for a lot more infrastructure in either WA or SA (I suspect that any Corvette may come out of WA).
When suggesting fleet composition can you please consider all this will take time noting the design finalisation could take years (noting we have to wait for the review before any other work can start) .... as well the establishment of the logistics to provide the systems and sensors. So please take a realistic view of how soon stuff can get done. Navantia, and others, may claim they can provides somethign in 'X' years but expericance shows such predictions can be optimistic.
As an example ..... Look at the Type 31 (which is progressing at pace), the design was shortlisted in December 2018, selected in September 2019 (but first ship ordered in November 2019) with first steel cut in 2021 (noting the UK do have more established shipyards than Australia at the moment) and the keel laid in April 2022. The vessel is predicted to be 'in service' by 2027. These are less complext than the T26 and are using existing contruction yards (that have a skilled workforce) and it is (opimisitically) going to take over 9 years from shortlsiting to get the first hull to sea. ...... Australia has not even decided what it wants to build yet.
alexsa
It isn’t just cost but our reputation that is at stake. To cancel or cutback yet another defence program puts our credibility at risk. I fully expect that the Arafura, if it is cut back, will be replaced by another Lurssen product.
Other reasons I think it will probably pan out that way is the DSR specifically recommending that we avoid long drawn out selection processes.Given that recommendation it is far easier to go with a builder that has already set up a production line and has experience working with local subcontractors rather than starting over again.
It also depends on what is recommended in the navy review. if it recommends corvettes it is likely they would be happy to go with and existing Lurssen vessel. If they recommend a GP frigate then that throws the door open to other builders.
Personally I think that for better or worse the government is likely to go with either the K130 or a stretched version of the Arafura. The navy’s interest in the C Dome system would seem to also support the idea of a smaller, simpler and cheaper vessel rather than something like the Type 31.
My only hope in the case of the RAN acquiring corvettes is that for the sake of the crew, they lack the range to actually reach any combat in the first place. Otherwise their almost definitely abysmal missile defences will see them either constantly relying on larger ships for protection or having a brief and unhappy encounter with a pair of YJ-83s.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
I suppose a good question to ask is whether we can make do with anything less than an Anzac-class? The vessels presumably fulfill our necessary range and speed requirements, while providing the platform for systems we regard as necessary for integration with ourselves and allies:
- Mk41 w/ ESSM Blk II (32x)
- NSM
- MH-60R (with room for S-100, by chance)
- CEAFAR2 radar
- 9LV combat system
- Hull sonar, with intended towed array for TDS and ASW.
Defence has/is throwing a lot of money to get the Anzacs to this point (in addition to other areas), presumably with a threat picture in mind. The DSR recommends expedited acquisition, so perhaps some of these capabilities could be forfeited - but what, in the context of the Anzac-class? And will a smaller vessel still reach specified operating areas like the northeast Indian Ocean, without assuming resupply from a nearby country?
I don't believe we are going to come close to the above with anything like a corvette, assuming the ship review actually recommends one.
Edit:
Imho, dragging work and effort away from the Hunters now seems like a poor decision - the first vessel will be entering service at the start of next decade with a fairly continuous building cycle, and the vessels presumably fit our operating requirements considering the likely greater threat from missiles and submarines. I don't see why we don't just stick to a solution, rather than looking for another problem to solve.
- Mk41 w/ ESSM Blk II (32x)
- NSM
- MH-60R (with room for S-100, by chance)
- CEAFAR2 radar
- 9LV combat system
- Hull sonar, with intended towed array for TDS and ASW.
Defence has/is throwing a lot of money to get the Anzacs to this point (in addition to other areas), presumably with a threat picture in mind. The DSR recommends expedited acquisition, so perhaps some of these capabilities could be forfeited - but what, in the context of the Anzac-class? And will a smaller vessel still reach specified operating areas like the northeast Indian Ocean, without assuming resupply from a nearby country?
I don't believe we are going to come close to the above with anything like a corvette, assuming the ship review actually recommends one.
Edit:
Imho, dragging work and effort away from the Hunters now seems like a poor decision - the first vessel will be entering service at the start of next decade with a fairly continuous building cycle, and the vessels presumably fit our operating requirements considering the likely greater threat from missiles and submarines. I don't see why we don't just stick to a solution, rather than looking for another problem to solve.
Last edited:
Something to consider re classifying a ship.
It does vary from navy to navy.
Destroyer, frigate, corvette etc.
Re corvettes, the feed back on DT seems to be of a short legged vessel but with significant armament for its size.
Still not in the weapons /sensor fitout of a 8000t destroyer, but a robust vessel for appropriate scenarios.
Not sure of the appropriate name for a vessel with the range requirements required by the RAN , but with the fit out of the type of corvettes that have been mentioned.
Maybe light patrol frigate, or as described by some European navy's. Ocean Patrol Vessel.
The later a nice variation of our own OPV, the. Offshore Patrol Vessel.
Cheers S
It does vary from navy to navy.
Destroyer, frigate, corvette etc.
Re corvettes, the feed back on DT seems to be of a short legged vessel but with significant armament for its size.
Still not in the weapons /sensor fitout of a 8000t destroyer, but a robust vessel for appropriate scenarios.
Not sure of the appropriate name for a vessel with the range requirements required by the RAN , but with the fit out of the type of corvettes that have been mentioned.
Maybe light patrol frigate, or as described by some European navy's. Ocean Patrol Vessel.
The later a nice variation of our own OPV, the. Offshore Patrol Vessel.
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IMO a realistic fourth (or more) option that has warships in RAN service by 2030 is a bit of a unicorn.
An in service date by the end of 2030 is only ~7.5 years away.
In order to complete builders and acceptance trials, construction and fitout would likely need to be finished by ~6.5 years from now, or possibly even earlier likely only 5.5 years from now.
If the ship build went well, it might only take ~24 months, though lead ships, particularly of new designs often take a bit longer. What this means is that first steel cutting would likely need to be started NLT ~4.5 years from now and ~2.5 years from now would probably be a more realistic requirement.
In order for steel to be cut, orders would need to be placed and the detailed design work would need to be finished. Those processes typically take about two years though they are sometimes a little shorter and can often be longer. These would likely need to be done NLT than 2.5 years from now, and IMO within the next six months would be a more likely requirement.
This is also where it should start to become apparent that there is a time crunch problem. If detailed design work needs to be completed within six months as well as orders placed and contracts signed, then several processes involved in ordering new warships would need to have already been completed.
In order to get a detailed design, then the base design and design would need to have already been selected, as well as what the systems and armament fitout would be. Long lead items would also likely need to have been ordered either whilst the detailed design work is being done, or before it even begins for some of the really long lead items. These types of timeframes can take a couple of years, so this might have needed to happen last year or possibly even back in 2020 or earlier.
In order for a base design to get selected, there would need to have been consideration of what the RAN would require in a new warship class, what characteristics, what capabilities, how many, etc. This would likely have added yet another year or more to the actual start date in order to get something into service by 2030. So now we are looking at a process which would need to started by around mid-2021 if not earlier.
Instead, there has been a DSR which is to be followed by a naval review. That naval review might very well be what Australia would need to have done to kick start the processes to make a selection on design requirements and fitout. The problem with this of course is that something like it would need to have happened at least a few years back in order to achieve an in-service data of 2030.
Consider looking again at the RN's Type 31 programme which @alexsa mentioned earlier. The expectation is that the lead ship will be in service by 2027, after being launched in 2023. That expected launch date comes after being laid down in 2022 whilst first steel was cut in Sept. 2021. The cutting of first steel (at an active yard with a skilled workforce) comes about two years after the design was selected in Sept. 2019. That design competition itself started around 2017 and that came after the 2015 SDSR where it was determined that more GP frigates of a lighter and more affordable design than the initially planned number of Type 26 frigates would be ordered.
In short, the expectation is that it will have taken about a dozen years between when the idea of the Type 31 first came up, to lead ship in RN service. Applying that same sort of timeline to the RAN now, with the DSR and naval review being equivalent to the 2015 SDSR, would see the lead ship in service by 2035.
This is what I do not think there really are any realistic options to get new warships into RAN service by 2030.
While I can see what you are getting at, have you thought outside of the box on how a Corvette could be used in defence of Australia?
The land based anti ship missile concept? Now think of the Corvettes hiding among the clutter of bays and islands and providing a similar role.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
One way to look at Corvettes, is look at the countries who are operating them and how they are operating them, some examples.
Israel
Taiwan
Singapore
Sweden
Germany
China
Russia
All Countries inside or very close to the operational area where they would be required to operate, where they can operate under friendly air cover within reach of friendly air bases, short trips back to resupply, where speed is more important than endurance.
I know I sound like a broken record, but I can’t say this enough. Hunters. And lots of them.
The design is done.
Production is underway.
We should be throwing everything at getting more of them built as quickly as possible.
[
5 billion per ship… not going to happen.
Can probably get 3-4 Type 31s for the same price.
5 billion per ship… not going to happen.
Can probably get 3-4 Type 31s for the same price.
Last edited: