Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

Cant do much before 27-28.
Luerssens saying the first c90 by 2028 with follow on corvettes every 10 months. That’s slow if steel is being cut in 2024.
Navantia offered 3 Hobarts for $6 billion by 2030 last year if built in Spain. I’m guessing that would be pushed out to 2031 or 2032 by now.
2 more hobarts by 2028-2029 seems doable from now and 96 cells is equivalent to 6 corvettes(96 cells). Possibly even 3 hobarts(144cells) by 2030/31 if Aus built some blocks or completed a small percentage of the build like they did with the lhds.

Admiral Hilarides, who is conducting this review, talks about 3 epochs. These are from now though to 2025, 2026 to 2031 and then beyond 2031.

The review will take into consideration the material state of the navy, ships under construction and ships that will be built in the future.

While he didn’t go into any detail beyond that I think it does give an insight into his approach. Basically step one, until 2025, is to do what ever we can with what we already have. Through to 2031 would cover the construction period of ships such as the Arafuras, perhaps the first Hunter and possibly a few other vessels. This might give you an opportunity to speed up delivery or make some changes to the ships that are under construction. The third epoch, beyond 2031 is probably the time to look at introducing new classes of warships.

I think we are already seeing clues as to the plans for an interim capability through to the 2030s. The delay in selection of a main gun for the Arafura for example. Worst case short term is that we just keep building Arafuras with a bigger gun.

Really I think there does need to be a concerted program to decide what sort of capabilities would be required for beyond 2031. I don’t imagine Admiral Hilarides coming out at the end of next month with a definitive plan for a new class of warships to be introduced into service from the late 20s. I have a feeling that he will simply announce that we will look at upgrading what we have or is already planned and proposing that we start investigating a new class of tier two combatant to be introduced in the 2030s.

if there is something I have learned from the DSR it is to lower my expectations. On the upside there will be plenty of time for people in this forum to speculate what sort of ships will be acquired in the 2030s and beyond. In the shorter term it might simply be whether we can fit more weapons on what we have or are already planning to build. Perhaps there is time for a stretched upgunned version of the Arafura but that might be about all you could get.

The government would be hesitant to halt or disrupt the production of ships currently under construction. More likely you will get a concerted campaign to try and convince us that with just a few tweaks we can convert OPVs to corvettes. As I said, lower those expectations and prepare to suspend your disbelief.

Industry briefed on analysis into Navy's surface fleet - Australian Defence Magazine

If it hadn’t been made completely clear already, the independent analysis of the Navy’s warships will assess how the surface fleet will complement the new nuclear submarines.

www.australiandefence.com.au

 

[StingrayOZ]

slight tangent, it would have been interesting to see how a full production run version of the Type 82 would have performed instead of the Type 42.

Also, the RN very nearly got a class of 209 m long, 16000 ton, armoured, gun and missile armed cruisers instead of the Counties.

Before/After the Falkland war, I would have thought the UK would have committed to their own sovereign navy, with such a clear and obvious answer and motivation to why they needed that capability. Bigger ships, allow more flexibility and more capability, at greater money, time, resource costs.

I think we are already seeing clues as to the plans for an interim capability through to the 2030s. The delay in selection of a main gun for the Arafura for example. Worst case short term is that we just keep building Arafuras with a bigger gun.

I don't know why we stuck with OPV80, when the 90m class of OPV's offer far greater flexibility in uncertain times. Even with no weapons, 90m ships are better sea keeping. Perhaps that is the outcome. The last 6 are 90m OPV's with space and provisions. Fitted for but not with.

if there is something I have learned from the DSR it is to lower my expectations. On the upside there will be plenty of time for people in this forum to speculate what sort of ships will be acquired in the 2030s and beyond.

Indeed. Outcome may not be any new platforms, or any new weapons. The DSR has definitely boosted clicks, posting, sold papers, created content for media.

 

[Redlands18]

A slight tangent, it would have been interesting to see how a full production run version of the Type 82 would have performed instead of the Type 42.

Also, the RN very nearly got a class of 209 m long, 16000 ton, armoured, gun and missile armed cruisers instead of the Counties.

Would have been an interesting exercise on what the RN would have done with those Cruisers by the late 1970s, would basically have required a very expensive MLU, the Sea Slug was totally obsolete, the Mk 6 113mm gun system was an ageing system. Would have needed a major rebuild with Sea Dart, maybe Sea Wolf, maybe even Mk 8 113mm, up to date Radar and fire control systems? or an early retirement? Going on the Counties (450+) the crewing requirements would have been massive.

 

[Stampede]

Admiral Hilarides, who is conducting this review, talks about 3 epochs. These are from now though to 2025, 2026 to 2031 and then beyond 2031.

The review will take into consideration the material state of the navy, ships under construction and ships that will be built in the future.

While he didn’t go into any detail beyond that I think it does give an insight into his approach. Basically step one, until 2025, is to do what ever we can with what we already have. Through to 2031 would cover the construction period of ships such as the Arafuras, perhaps the first Hunter and possibly a few other vessels. This might give you an opportunity to speed up delivery or make some changes to the ships that are under construction. The third epoch, beyond 2031 is probably the time to look at introducing new classes of warships.

I think we are already seeing clues as to the plans for an interim capability through to the 2030s. The delay in selection of a main gun for the Arafura for example. Worst case short term is that we just keep building Arafuras with a bigger gun.

Really I think there does need to be a concerted program to decide what sort of capabilities would be required for beyond 2031. I don’t imagine Admiral Hilarides coming out at the end of next month with a definitive plan for a new class of warships to be introduced into service from the late 20s. I have a feeling that he will simply announce that we will look at upgrading what we have or is already planned and proposing that we start investigating a new class of tier two combatant to be introduced in the 2030s.

if there is something I have learned from the DSR it is to lower my expectations. On the upside there will be plenty of time for people in this forum to speculate what sort of ships will be acquired in the 2030s and beyond. In the shorter term it might simply be whether we can fit more weapons on what we have or are already planning to build. Perhaps there is time for a stretched upgunned version of the Arafura but that might be about all you could get.

The government would be hesitant to halt or disrupt the production of ships currently under construction. More likely you will get a concerted campaign to try and convince us that with just a few tweaks we can convert OPVs to corvettes. As I said, lower those expectations and prepare to suspend your disbelief.

Industry briefed on analysis into Navy's surface fleet - Australian Defence Magazine

If it hadn’t been made completely clear already, the independent analysis of the Navy’s warships will assess how the surface fleet will complement the new nuclear submarines.

www.australiandefence.com.au

Agree with the notion that going forward planning / construction will be some what divided into three time groups.
There would be a reason unknown at this stage for this statement.

Speculate some change in the current construction plans.
Of interest are what changes would if any be on the adjender for the first period out to 25/26

What's realistic in the next couple of years?

Interesting

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

Proposing to one day start investigating another class of ships certainly fits the government narrative. It would be DSR leading to Naval review leading to think about reviewing other options. Pardon my skepticism.

 

[ngatimozart]

DC seems like a bit of a joke. A lot like submarine rescue capability. What is going to be left of a warship after a missile or torpedo hit?

It's not a joke. DC (Damage Control) is core to a ships survivability and can be difference between losing a ship and saving it. You just don't deep six a multibillion dollar vessel because it has a hole in it. DC is aimed at saving both the ship and lives.

 

[Jason_DBF]

It's not a joke. DC (Damage Control) is core to a ships survivability and can be difference between losing a ship and saving it. You just don't deep six a multibillion dollar vessel because it has a hole in it. DC is aimed at saving both the ship and lives.

I'm pretty experienced in DC I just think it's a joke thinking your ship will survive either a torpedo or missile hit.

 

[Volkodav]

Would have been an interesting exercise on what the RN would have done with those Cruisers by the late 1970s, would basically have required a very expensive MLU, the Sea Slug was totally obsolete, the Mk 6 113mm gun system was an ageing system. Would have needed a major rebuild with Sea Dart, maybe Sea Wolf, maybe even Mk 8 113mm, up to date Radar and fire control systems? or an early retirement? Going on the Counties (450+) the crewing requirements would have been massive.

They were designed to replace two of the four Mk6 twin 3" L/70s with Mk11 or 13 Tartar GMLS once they became available. The main guns were two twin Mk26 twin 6" (152mm) as fitted to the Tiger Class.

Four of these ships came very close to being ordered instead of the County Class.

Had they been built they would have been less than twenty years old at the time of the Falklands. The Tartar retro fit, likely would have been upgraded to Standard MR. Seaslug may have been surpressed and the ships converted to CGHs.

Very what if

 

[Volkodav]

I'm pretty experienced in DC I just think it's a joke thinking your ship will survive either a torpedo or missile hit.

Missile, maybe, heavy weight torpedo, no. Ticonderogas and FFGs have survived mines, Stark survived two Exocets.

 

[Stuart M]

I'm pretty experienced in DC I just think it's a joke thinking your ship will survive either a torpedo or missile hit.

Right about torpedo hits, esp on small ships, but USS Stark survived missile hits.

 

[seaspear]

Is it fair to suggest that larger ships can be designed to include better hard and soft kill options against incoming threats than smaller vessels that may not even have an adequate sensor arrangement to detect such threats

 

[Redlands18]

Corvettes are not an option for Australia | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Good article from Rear Admiral (ret) Rowan Moffitt on why Corvettes are not suitable for the RAN.

 

[hauritz]

Corvettes are not an option for Australia | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Good article from Rear Admiral (ret) Rowan Moffitt on why Corvettes are not suitable for the RAN.

He raises some salient points. Corvettes indeed would not satisfy any of the review’s requirements in regards to increased lethality, area denial or impactful projection. In fact it is hard to imagine what real capability tarted up Arafuras would offer to the navy.

Unfortunately I can't imagine any Australian government having the political will to do what should be done.

Firstly they would have to spend a lot more money, probably take up Spain's offer to build additional Hobarts in Spain, scrap the idea of corvettes and instead start work on building a new class of frigates at Henderson. With some luck that might see additional Hobarts join the fleet before the end of the decade followed by a new class of frigates entering the service in the early 2030s. Won't happen of course.

 

[swerve]

A slight tangent, it would have been interesting to see how a full production run version of the Type 82 would have performed instead of the Type 42.

Just drop the steam turbines! All GTs - or we're struggling to man & maintain them.

I've often wondered if sticking with the County hull, internally remodelled of course, with Sea Dart & all GTs, might have worked. Good sea-keeping & speed, supposedly tough, & without Sea Slug & with all Olympus propulsion it'd have had spare weight & space & needed far fewer crew.

 

[Stampede]

Corvettes are not an option for Australia | The Strategist (aspistrategist.org.au)
Good article from Rear Admiral (ret) Rowan Moffitt on why Corvettes are not suitable for the RAN.

A good article and many goods points.
Difficult not to disagree with the main theme of ship size, lethality and distance.

What I was wanting was some realistic answers.

What ship is he actually proposing and from where?
What sized fleet is he proposing?
What cost?
What timetable?
Crewing challenges?
How's our current fleet going to meet the challenges of the next seven years?

Sure 12 to 15 destroyers sounds great.
I get it!
Realistically how and when will that happen?


Cheers S

 

[Stuart M]

Just drop the steam turbines! All GTs - or we're struggling to man & maintain them.

I've often wondered if sticking with the County hull, internally remodelled of course, with Sea Dart & all GTs, might have worked. Good sea-keeping & speed, supposedly tough, & without Sea Slug & with all Olympus propulsion it'd have had spare weight & space & needed far fewer crew.

Don't know how the internals could be remodelled for Sea Dart without redesigning everything from the Bridge aft? New design might be more efficient. A Type 82 baseline but drop the Ikara, Sea Dart forward and a hanger for Sea King aft?

 

[hauritz]

A good article and many goods points.
Difficult not to disagree with the main theme of ship size, lethality and distance.

What I was wanting was some realistic answers.

What ship is he actually proposing and from where?
What sized fleet is he proposing?
What cost?
What timetable?
Crewing challenges?
How's our current fleet going to meet the challenges of the next seven years?

Sure 12 to 15 destroyers sounds great.
I get it!
Realistically how and when will that happen?


Cheers S

That is the problem. Given that the new nukes will suck up a lot of the resources and money from the navy’s defence budget it does impose a lot of the restraints on the surface fleet. Can’t have a champagne navy on a beer budget.
Personally I think SSNs are the right call and that does mean having to compromise on the surface fleet.
In principle I have no problem with a mix of Tier one and Tier two warships provided you get the mix right and of course you get an acceptable Tier two design.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is it fair to suggest that larger ships can be designed to include better hard and soft kill options against incoming threats than smaller vessels that may not even have an adequate sensor arrangement to detect such threats

In very general terms, yes. A larger vessel (space & displacement) can have greater margins to fit more/larger/more capable systems, as well as have the gen sets, cooling, and shipboard electronics to make effective use of said systems.

There are also defensive systems which AFAIK can only be fitted to vessels of a certain size or larger, with Praire-Masker coming to mind although I am uncertain whether or not this is still really used or fitted.

In a small combatant like an FSG, there would likely be compromises made to the fitout, since there would most likely not be enough of everything (volume, deck space, power, displacement, etc.) for a corvette to fit all the weapons one would like, as well as the sensors and the self-defence suites.

 

[devo99]

Some things I'd like to point out in regards to heavily armed corvettes such as the C90 is that crew size tends to scale with the number of systems you put on a ship rather than it's size. It's important that we don't waste weapons ETs and other specialised sailors (which the RAN is notably in short supply of) on fundamentally backline ships. Particularly when those backline duties can be done with a less armed and therefore also much cheaper vessel requiring few more specialised sailors than a patrol boat.

As for the combat capability they bring. You could just put that weapons and systems fit on a larger, more survivable and less AOR dependent (we've only got two of them) hull for really not a whole lot more money in terms of build and fitting costs without the issue of having to pack what would essentially be the specialist complement of an Anzac into a hull with half the displacement.

 

[Volkodav]

Don't know how the internals could be remodelled for Sea Dart without redesigning everything from the Bridge aft? New design might be more efficient. A Type 82 baseline but drop the Ikara, Sea Dart forward and a hanger for Sea King aft?

Way off topic for the RAN thread except in terms of we could have bought or built version of these ships, but....

The County class was the culmination of a number of related lines of development.

There were the various Super Daring concepts with more powerful machinery, an additional turret, either another Mk6 4.5" twin, or a Mk 6 3" twin.

There was the DL/DLG sized Cruiser Destroyer. This was intended to replace destroyers and cruisers in service, serve as a fleet escort and convoy escort, provide aircraft direction, as well as be able to dispatch a Severdlov class cruiser through a high volume of 5"L70 automatic gun fire. Sketches for this ship introduced the COSAG propulsion option.

Then there were the various austere missile escort options, ranging from the smallest hull able to carry twelve Seaslugs and a twin Bofors, to double ended DLGs.

The Type 82 was, believe it or not, a follow on from the Type 81, Tribal Class GP frigate/sloop and evolved from the Type 12 ASW frigate hull form. It was intended as a high end, general purpose carrier escort and a complement to the Escort Cruiser (the precursor to the Invincible Class Through Deck Cruiser).

The arrangement of the Seaslug in the County takes up a substantial amount of the ships length but there it plenty of depth for a Mk-13 or Seadart at the flight deck. Conceivably the hangar and Seaslug director could be removed and the new missile system installed in their place with a larger hangar and flight deck worked in aft in place of the current flight deck and quarter deck launcher.