Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

The current plan for the RAN basically goes back to the 2009 DWP, with minor changes in 2012 and 2016 DWPs and the 2020 update. The 2009 DWP called for 12 SS / 12 and 2016Ks, 8 FFGs and 20 OPVs, by 2016 it had changed to 9 FFGs and 12 OPVs, in 2020 a further 6-8 OPVs were added to replace the Huons and Hydrographic ships. 14 years later not a single one of those ships has been delivered to the RAN. These reviews are supposed to deliver results, they have delivered nothing, I don't know any other nation that has become so bad at not being able to deliver a new fleet.

At this stage the future RAN is a bit of a mystery pending the outcome of the current Navy review late September this year.

Today 2023

Canberra Class 2 Ships- 2033 2 Ships
Hobart Class 3 Ships- 2023 3 Ships
ANZAC Class 8 Ships - 2033 6 , 7 or 8 ?
HMAS Choules 1 Ships - 2033 Still serving? or Joint Support ship concept 1 or 2 Ships
Maybe evolved into Army's future heavy landing Craft Fleet Numbers ?
Supply Class 2 Ships - 2033Ships 2
Arafura Class 0 (1 - 6 Building ) - 2033 6 RAN / BF or sold
Arafura Class 7 - 12 Ships - 2033 unknown
Tier 2 Vessel 0 Ships - 2033 unknown
Leeuwin Class 2 Ships - 2033 unknown
Huon Class 4 Ships - 2033 unknown
Cape Class 14 RAN / BF - 2033 - 18 RAN / BF - Numbers and Ownership may well evolve and change.

Submarines

Collin Class 6 Today 2033 6
Virginia 0 Today 2033 1 / plus the intention for additional vessels.


The obvious reason for fantasy fleets is there are a lot of unknowns in the Fleet going forward.

Suggest the DWP's of 2009 / 12 and 16 are culturally forgotten as they now belong to a very different world.
For Navy, the 2020 Defence strategic Update looks very out of place.

Government seem content with the RAAF and the current plans for Army.
However!
Navy gets its own review!

Now will the reviews intent lead to the building of a much larger more capable fleet, with action taken to prudently acquire capability quickly where possible.
If so what does that realistically look like?

Or are we been prepped for a fleet slash and burn; working on the premise we will safe with our future Nuclear Submarine force going forward and no funds to achieve what we had originally planned.

I'm certainly hoping it's not the later.

Suggest Tier 2 Vessels will be the interesting one.
How big? how capable? how many? When do they enter service?

No doubt this one Class will influence many of the gaps and existing fleet numbers in the above table going forward.

Will it be a warship, an gunned up escort or a beefed up constabulary vessel?

Whatever it is, it will be the keystone for good or bad as to the future of the RAN's composition 2030's plus.

So we wait

Late September is not too far away.



Cheers S

 

[devo99]

Meanwhile it is good to see the navy in Hobart. HMAS Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane are visiting for the next few days. The paintwork on Adelaide is interesting. Looks like the paint being used for touch ups is a different shade to that used in the Dockyard! Almost looks like a type of camouflage!

View attachment 50498

Reminds me of the interesting, patchy blue-grey paint job Hobart was wearing at Exercise Kakadu last year.

 

[spoz]

The Spanish F100s were built in Ferrol, not Cartagena. The statement that Navy never contemplated more does not mean they might not have been offered; it might just mean Navy wasn’t interested in more of what is now a 25 year old design - and the reasons for that possible lack of interest have been well canvassed here over the last few years.

 

[Volkodav]

The Spanish F100s were built in Ferrol, not Cartagena. The statement that Navy never contemplated more does not mean they might not have been offered; it might just mean Navy wasn’t interested in more of what is now a 25 year old design - and the reasons for that possible lack of interest have been well canvassed here over the last few years.

I would suggest that now, as with everything, they are in service, they can see what they like, what they don't like, what they would do again, and what they wouldn't. Basically, why on earth, while they are scoping and contracting upgrades, discovering what cannot be changed or improved on the existing ships, would they buy three more of the same.

 

[alexsa]

Reptilia

Thanks for that info on program timing. Unfortunately though that confirms my fears. If we don’t finish Hunters till 2048 to 2052 the 8th Anzac will be over 40 years old by then (in 2046), which means fleet numbers or serviceability will continue declining.

In fact, Hobart will turn 30 in 2047, so we should have started replacing the Hobarts before we will have finished the Hunters. From a niaive “counting the hulls” viewpoint, the whole program looks too late, just as the Attacks were. This is not a criticism of ASC but past government ordering.

Logically, if we want to increase RAN “tier 1” hull numbers back to 12 or more, and we build the larger ships on a 2 year drumbeat, it takes 24 years to renew the fleet, without any growth. So shouldn’t we be completing a destroyer or frigate at ASC every two years from now on continuously? Otherwise we never catch up to our planned strength.

I wish I could find the interview where this was recorded, but Osborne is supposed to be able to operate at a higher production rate than originally anticipated. This rate was established in line with the ship building plan (which anticipated the DDG replacement would start in in around 2039 after the Hunter was completed). Given hull 1 has slipped then I would expect the drumbeat to increase. Just how much the drum beat could increase will depend as much on the availability of systems as the steel work.

With all options being suggested and/or proposed by pundits this will be an issue for any future vessel.

 

[alexsa]

The top speed of the Hunter class may be cut by larger mass does the same also apply to the slower stealth speed for operating directly against submarines

Unless you have the hull model you cannot determine the significance of the impact. A fatter ship may be marginally slower than a thinner vessel of a similar hull form for a given power. It depends on the hull form and speed change will not necessarily be proportionate to an increase in mass.

As an example, a family10000 container ships build for a company I worked for were plugged to increase cargo capacity. The increase length of the ship improved its longitudinal stability and made the rudder control more effective. The ship got a slight speed increase due better hydrodynamics on the same installed power.

The efficiency of the cruising speed will be determined by power and fuel consumption. A lot of sites note range at 18knots (that being the anticipated cruising speed) but this may not be the most efficient speed…. It is just the desired usual speed of advance for the vessel in normal operations.

 

[Morgo]

I wish I could find the interview where this was recorded, but Osborne is supposed to be able to operate at a higher production rate than originally anticipated. This rate was established in line with the ship building plan (which anticipated the DDG replacement would start in in around 2039 after the Hunter was completed). Given hull 1 has slipped then I would expect the drumbeat to increase. Just how much the drum beat could increase will depend as much on the availability of systems as the steel work.

With all options being suggested and/or proposed by pundits this will be an issue for any future vessel.

If this is the case - and I believe you when you say it is - then why don’t we bloody well get on with it??

Our fleet is desperately short of combat capability and we need a bigger fleet in the long term (ie we can sustain a higher tempo indefinitely).

 

[MickB]

Not all steel is equally cheap, & a ship like the Type 26 isn't a simple hull like a container ship or bulk carrier. The hull is designed to be quiet & have a low radar cross-section, & IIRC be relatively inconspicuous thermally, & that costs money. The propulsion isn't cheap, & it's designed not to transmit noise to the hull. It's designed to be a top of class anti-submarine ship.

A Hunter with Type 31 systems & weapons would still be much more expensive to build & more expensive to operate than a Type 31, even with the same crew. Unless you think there's a real chance you're going to need its characteristics it'd be a waste of money.

Agree. but given what has happened to and is proposed to happen to the Anzacs over their life do you not think a Hunter Lite would be upgraded at some point.

Even if the cost per hull is higher (the cost would be be reduced by numbers produced) would it not be less than setting up a whole new production line and training a whole new batch of workers on a different design?

Given that reducing the Hunter build would increase the cost per hull, so what savings are to be made with a new design unless it has vastly reduced capacity.

 

[Volkodav]

If this is the case - and I believe you when you say it is - then why don’t we bloody well get on with it??

Our fleet is desperately short of combat capability and we need a bigger fleet in the long term (ie we can sustain a higher tempo indefinitely).

During the Hobart build the work force was meant to be much larger, the initial team training a second team, to permit concurrent activities on two ships, and eventually three. When the schedule was slipped existing personnel were made redundant.

I have no idea what the build strategy for the Hunters is but I believe the continuous build was likely to the slower, one ship at a time build as used on the Hobart's not the concurrent build planned.

 

[Volkodav]

We were never going to get nine Hunters all at once, it was always going to be multiple batches over more than a decade. If the total buy is cut to six it really doesn't matter at this point because the first three are years off anyway.

If the cut to planned future construction is to free up crews and capacity for a concurrent build of capability that would be available sooner, fantastic.

A class of combatant, increasing actual combatant numbers sooner, whether it be a Corvette or frigate, instead of the final six OPVs is a win because it means more combat capability sooner, a greater number of capable, survivable warships sooner than the final three Hunters could ever have been available.

If the strategic situation continues to deteriorate then would we even want the final three hunters, or would we be looking to build proper destroyers?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Basically, why on earth, while they are scoping and contracting upgrades, discovering what cannot be changed or improved on the existing ships, would they buy three more of the same.

I've heard while nice ships one of the key issues with Hobart's is endurance and time at sea. As in an Anzac gets nearly twice as much sea time as a Hobart.

I'm not sure if that's due to the ship itself, or crewing issues or just fleet or conop issues.

Which may explain why the ran isn't excited by more of them.

From an everyone perspective having 18-24 surface combatants would make a lot of sense. But getting the weapons we need the crewing we have and the endurance we need is a big unique ask.

What we may need is 18 anzacs, not 12 large Hobart's.

 

[Stampede]

Unless you have the hull model you cannot determine the significance of the impact. A fatter ship may be marginally slower than a thinner vessel of a similar hull form for a given power. It depends on the hull form and speed change will not necessarily be proportionate to an increase in mass.

As an example, a family10000 container ships build for a company I worked for were plugged to increase cargo capacity. The increase length of the ship improved its longitudinal stability and made the rudder control more effective. The ship got a slight speed increase due better hydrodynamics on the same installed power.

The efficiency of the cruising speed will be determined by power and fuel consumption. A lot of sites note range at 18knots (that being the anticipated cruising speed) but this may not be the most efficient speed…. It is just the desired usual speed of advance for the vessel in normal operations.

This is why I wonder if there is any scope in stretching the future new build Arafura's.
Same everything but with a modest hull plug in the middle.
Extra 3m , 5m or 10m in length would add space for additional crew, office space, stores and fuel.
Even 3m would add about a dozen crew with some handy spare room for "stuff ".
It's not all about guns and missiles.
"Enhanced OPV."


Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

We were never going to get nine Hunters all at once, it was always going to be multiple batches over more than a decade. If the total buy is cut to six it really doesn't matter at this point because the first three are years off anyway.

If the cut to planned future construction is to free up crews and capacity for a concurrent build of capability that would be available sooner, fantastic.

A class of combatant, increasing actual combatant numbers sooner, whether it be a Corvette or frigate, instead of the final six OPVs is a win because it means more combat capability sooner, a greater number of capable, survivable warships sooner than the final three Hunters could ever have been available.

If the strategic situation continues to deteriorate then would we even want the final three hunters, or would we be looking to build proper destroyers?

Yep talking numbers in a long term production run is a bit academic.
Be it a Hunter or an IFV, as long as decisions can be made compatible with the manufacturing supply chains you can just keep churning out stuff.
Its the short term capability that is our priority for both today and the immediate years ahead.

What does a tier two vessel look like?

Hope they get it right.


Cheers S

 

[hauritz]

This is why I wonder if there is any scope in stretching the future new build Arafura's.
Same everything but with a modest hull plug in the middle.
Extra 3m , 5m or 10m in length would add space for additional crew, office space, stores and fuel.
Even 3m would add about a dozen crew with some handy spare room for "stuff ".
It's not all about guns and missiles.
"Enhanced OPV."

IMO a stretched version of the Arafura is probably the most likely option. Lurssen used to have images of an 85 and 90 metre version of this OPV on their website. Essentially it is similar to what they are building for the Bulgarian navy.

The advantage of this approach would be that there would be minimal impact on production. There are already hints that this could be what they are considering with the delay in selecting a main gun and the consideration of bolt on weapon systems such as C-Dome.

Even hints in the DSR that they want to avoid any unnecessary delays is selecting new equipment.

It wouldn’t surprise me if we actually saw a couple of new classes of smaller vessels. The first would be a stretched version of the Arafura and the second could be a more capable vessel built at the expense of a few of the Hunters.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is why I wonder if there is any scope in stretching the future new build Arafura's.
Same everything but with a modest hull plug in the middle.
Extra 3m , 5m or 10m in length would add space for additional crew, office space, stores and fuel.
Even 3m would add about a dozen crew with some handy spare room for "stuff ".
It's not all about guns and missiles.
"Enhanced OPV."

Lurrsen does have a OPV90 Also the German corvettes are similar sized as is the MPPV90 for the Bulgarian navy.

Wayback Machine

Can fit:
76mm
4 x NSM
1 MK56
2 Decoy
2 20mm RWS
2 .50 cal
2 x 9m rhib (existing has 1 x 10m)
2 x 5.5m rhib (existing has 2 x 8.5m)
2 container spaces
EMS/EO/IR/Link11/16 sensors

But there are a number of changes, engines for example go from 2 x 4mw to 2 x 6mw

Maybe possible to shift the remaining 4-6 to this hull configuration. Even if new engines had to be procured, it would be easier than trying to refit the existing Arafura ships.

Crewing is huge. At least on paper ~86+4. Lurrsen other corvette designs a more like 60, so unclear where this would end up. So in terms of crewing, that is Mogami or Type31 levels of (crew 90-100). But that is kind of the problem you have. a 2000T corvette with only 8 VLS takes a much crew as a 4000t frigate with the similar weapons fitout, but the frigate will generally be able to embark more weapons (16 or 24 vls + more antishipping + CIWS) and have greater endurance.

But at least lurrsen has a footprint here and an active ship building program and a design many are familiar with. It may be without the weapons fitted, the crewing can still be quite low, and we just end up with a slightly bigger, slightly faster OPV, but has the wiring, power, cooling, weight allocation, deck space, for weapons.

It really depends on the review finding if there is a priority for now over the future.

Maybe replace the anzacs with 2000-4000t light crew ships, say <80 per ship that would give us 16 ships.
Replace the current hobarts with the "cruiser" Hunter design. With 4-5 Hunters.

I presume a smaller more distributed fleet would be more effective against submarines?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Keel laying of the first patrol vessel for the Bulgarian Navy » MTG DOLPHIN

Today, 17.06.2022, the keel of the first MMPV for Bulgarian Navy was laid at MTG Dolphin in Varna. The first keel block, weighting 47 tons, was laid over “lucky coins” in a traditional shipbuilding…

www.dolphin1.bg

Here is the image from the MMPV90 for Bulgaria. You can see why you can't just fit the weapons it has to the Arafura OPV80 design. VLS up front behind the 76mm, and the hangar, which is full sized and the 35mm gun on top. Early configurations had the VLS on the side of the hangar. On this design it might be possible to fit ESSM and seaRAM/CAMM/Cdome/vl mica, ESSM up front and small missiles at the back. But not sure about torpedo's, maybe from the flex deck out the back as a removable launcher type deal?

 

[Volkodav]

Everyone is jumping to solution space before the problem has been defined.

The strategy and needs have to be set before the requirements can be developed.

There is no point discussing the types of systems you need, let alone the enabling platforms when you haven't worked out what you need to do.

 

[seaspear]

Is there a likelihood that interfering with the build plan of the Hunter class will rise costs significantly , to then build extra tier 2? when short of tier ones seems confusing

 

[Reptilia]

Lurrsen does have a OPV90 Also the German corvettes are similar sized as is the MPPV90 for the Bulgarian navy.

Wayback Machine

Can fit:
76mm
4 x NSM
1 MK56
2 Decoy
2 20mm RWS
2 .50 cal
2 x 9m rhib (existing has 1 x 10m)
2 x 5.5m rhib (existing has 2 x 8.5m)
2 container spaces
EMS/EO/IR/Link11/16 sensors

But there are a number of changes, engines for example go from 2 x 4mw to 2 x 6mw

Maybe possible to shift the remaining 4-6 to this hull configuration. Even if new engines had to be procured, it would be easier than trying to refit the existing Arafura ships.

Crewing is huge. At least on paper ~86+4. Lurrsen other corvette designs a more like 60, so unclear where this would end up. So in terms of crewing, that is Mogami or Type31 levels of (crew 90-100). But that is kind of the problem you have. a 2000T corvette with only 8 VLS takes a much crew as a 4000t frigate with the similar weapons fitout, but the frigate will generally be able to embark more weapons (16 or 24 vls + more antishipping + CIWS) and have greater endurance.

But at least lurrsen has a footprint here and an active ship building program and a design many are familiar with. It may be without the weapons fitted, the crewing can still be quite low, and we just end up with a slightly bigger, slightly faster OPV, but has the wiring, power, cooling, weight allocation, deck space, for weapons.

It really depends on the review finding if there is a priority for now over the future.

Maybe replace the anzacs with 2000-4000t light crew ships, say <80 per ship that would give us 16 ships.
Replace the current hobarts with the "cruiser" Hunter design. With 4-5 Hunters.

I presume a smaller more distributed fleet would be more effective against submarines?

The only good luerssen tier 2 ship design on the website useful for aus is the MRF 120 and 0 have been produced. The mmpv 90 is only a tiny upgrade on the Arafura. The bigger corvettes have a specific role whereas the MRF, it’s in the name… multi role frigate, something you would expect from a tier 2 ship. With a Clear emphasis on less risky acquisitions going forward, can’t see how it won’t be something based off the k130 that we have seen in various articles over the past year. Any cancellation of the Arafura contract will result in big penalties and even bigger political repercussions.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The only good luerssen tier 2 ship design on the website useful for aus is the MRF 120 and 0 have been produced. The mmpv 90 is only a tiny upgrade on the Arafura. The bigger corvettes have a specific role whereas the MRF, it’s in the name… multi role frigate, something you would expect from a tier 2 ship. With a Clear emphasis on less risky acquisitions going forward, can’t see how it won’t be something based off the k130 that we have seen in various articles over the past year. Any cancellation of the Arafura contract will result in big penalties and even bigger political repercussions.

This is the problem, a larger OPV type ship, even if it can fit a few weapons, is still pretty much an OPV.

It seems the MMPV90 is that Bulgaria is getting is more closely based on the K130 and the OPV90 was originally spawned out of the OPV designs. But I don't know how much overlap or differences there are between them on a fundamental design level. But they are different, and both different from the OPV80 we are currently building.

4x NSM IMO doesn't sound like a game changer. Some ESSM is nice, but they would be more like a defensive escort, escorting frigates and other more capable ships. Without layers, its still limited, particularly against modern high level threats.

China is a moving threat. They aren't a country that has just made a one off purchase of some neat kit, they will continually develop better and better system en masse. So you would ideally want the platform to have some growth potential. China isn't going away.

IMO light Corvettes/OPV's just don't shift the game further enough along IMO. Not against a threat like China. If we are replacing Anzacs, you would want something more capable than a Anzac, with the big advantage with say smaller crew so you can have more of them. Creating more platforms, you can create more career opportunities and grow the RAN. Going 1 for 1 doesn't create many new career opportunities.

I am not trying to stay platform agnostic. Just exploring the advantages and disadvantages of various ideas and concepts.

• Are there planforms that can carry similar/more weapons and systems as an Anzac, but crewed by half as many people?
• Or is there a platform that has a slightly larger crew size than the Arafura's, but can carry an Anzac type load out and endurance?

I think those are possible. That does change the game. But the RAN is looking more than just VLS loadouts on a platform.