Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

I'll have to dig it out but Brown in one of his books outlined how increasing the capability of a "disposable" platform causes it to cross a threshold where it is no longer a disposable platform. This then requires its survivability and durability to be improved, further increasing cost, and requiring greater investment in selfdefence.

I'm not familiar with Brown, but I think I get what your alluding to re investment in a vessel.
I probably differ to some on DT in that I can see a place for a vessel in between a constabulary vessel and a MFU.

Robust constabulary vessel for want of a better description.

Many navy's / coast guards have vessels similar in size to a light frigate.
Eg the Holland Class from The Netherlands.

In general terms, a vessel of sufficient size to provide range and persistence from shore
for a respectable amount of time with good sea keeping ability.

Not a boat with a small gun , but a true medium calibre weapon , typically a 76mm with a full suite of aviation facilities for a medium sized helicopter.

A good number of RHIBs and a crew composition and sensor suite appropriate to the systems installed.

No ASW, SSM or SAM just the above, but still a platform that has some scope for limited upgrade should the need arise.

The problem I have always had with the Arafura Class is it is not one thing or the other.

Sure, it's a vast improvement on the former patrol boat generations, but for me it still falls short on capability.

It's a shame it's so close.

Just that bit longer and heavier it would do what I describe above.

Same sensors and a few extra crew and you would get that "robust constabulary vessel"

Is this what the Naval review is pitching for in a Tier Two vessel.

No bloody idea,

However this would be my pick.
A vessel that can provide more options than the Arafura design.

Additionally I'd still build a dozen MFUs.

This would be a balanced RAN in my opinion.


Cheers S

 

[justinterested]

In this Naval News clip, it is stated that "Australasia" has displayed interest in the Arrowhead 140 design:
Babcock Type 31 and Arrowhead 140 design in Naval News
This would seem to be an ideal candidate for a tier 2 vessel in terms of cost, range, size, flexibility and future upgradability.

 

[Todjaeger]

In this Naval News clip, it is stated that "Australasia" has displayed interest in the Arrowhead 140 design:
Babcock Type 31 and Arrowhead 140 design in Naval News
This would seem to be an ideal candidate for a tier 2 vessel in terms of cost, range, size, flexibility and future upgradability.

Unfortunately there still has not been a public announcement on what would constitute a Tier 2 (or Tier 1, for that matter...) vessel. Until more info comes out, which now might not happen until some time in 2024, pretty much all we can do is speculate. A rather frustrating situation, but here we are.

 

[Volkodav]

I'm not familiar with Brown, but I think I get what your alluding to re investment in a vessel.
I probably differ to some on DT in that I can see a place for a vessel in between a constabulary vessel and a MFU.

Robust constabulary vessel for want of a better description.

Many navy's / coast guards have vessels similar in size to a light frigate.
Eg the Holland Class from The Netherlands.

In general terms, a vessel of sufficient size to provide range and persistence from shore
for a respectable amount of time with good sea keeping ability.

Not a boat with a small gun , but a true medium calibre weapon , typically a 76mm with a full suite of aviation facilities for a medium sized helicopter.

A good number of RHIBs and a crew composition and sensor suite appropriate to the systems installed.

No ASW, SSM or SAM just the above, but still a platform that has some scope for limited upgrade should the need arise.

The problem I have always had with the Arafura Class is it is not one thing or the other.

Sure, it's a vast improvement on the former patrol boat generations, but for me it still falls short on capability.

It's a shame it's so close.

Just that bit longer and heavier it would do what I describe above.

Same sensors and a few extra crew and you would get that "robust constabulary vessel"

Is this what the Naval review is pitching for in a Tier Two vessel.

No bloody idea,

However this would be my pick.
A vessel that can provide more options than the Arafura design.

Additionally I'd still build a dozen MFUs.

This would be a balanced RAN in my opinion.


Cheers S

What you are describing is basically the Dutch Holland, Spanish BAM, Danish Knud Rasmussen (though this is a quite specialised Polar design) or Thetis.

To be honest, when multi mission ships began being discussed to replace the Armidales in the mid/late 2000s, these are the sort of ship we (industry) thought was on the cards.

When the government changed the rhetoric under Johnston switched to small fast frigates and patrol vessels, although it was never particularly clear what he had in mind. The suspicion was, considering his parochialism and allegences, Austal Trimaran frigates and more aluminium patrol boats.

To be honest, a slower (35kt plus instead of 45kt plus), more durable and better equipped LCS 2 type frigate wouldn't be a bad thing, just not necessarily the best fit or value for the RAN.

With the distances involved the French probably had the right idea with the Floreal and preceding D'Estienne d'Orves class avisos or, off shore patrol ships / colonial sloops.

The thing is, there is no one solution, no one way forward. What you get next needs to factor what you already have and how everything fits together.

If you have a sustainable number of high end major combatants you can afford to have vertually unarmed OPVs and PBs for constabulary work. If you have a limited number of mid level combatants, and a moderate number of upgraded patrol frigates, the size and capability of the minor warfare vessels becomes more critical.

 

[Volkodav]

In this Naval News clip, it is stated that "Australasia" has displayed interest in the Arrowhead 140 design:
Babcock Type 31 and Arrowhead 140 design in Naval News
This would seem to be an ideal candidate for a tier 2 vessel in terms of cost, range, size, flexibility and future upgradability.

I suppose the big issue in defining what a tier 2 vessel is, is first understanding what is tier 1 and how they will fit together to deliver the required capability.

I like the Type 31 and it would be an excellent option for the RAN, if we are talking of it as a supplement to the Hobart's, and say, six Hunters?

All above my pay grade, personally I can't wait to see the review (whenever that may be).

What we also need to keep in mind, is even if we cut numbers of our current builds, the direction the previous government set will see ships being delivered for many years yet. A change in direction now, even if given super priority would take several years to any order, let alone cutting steel.

We are talking what will supplement, not what will be built instead of the Hunters. Basically now is when we should be looking at what will replace the Hobart's.

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately there still has not been a public announcement on what would constitute a Tier 2 (or Tier 1, for that matter...) vessel. Until more info comes out, which now might not happen until some time in 2024, pretty much all we can do is speculate. A rather frustrating situation, but here we are.

Sorry I missed your reply before I posted mine. We are on the same page.

 

[hauritz]

.

Returning to an idea originly floated by Volk, do a program similar to the SSN deal.
Build one Burke in US with some Aust workers of various levels included.
Set up a line in WA to produce another five ships at a two year drumbeat.
The final three being direct replacements for the Hobarts.

If you also keep the Hunters on track you will end up with 15 MFU.
9 Hunters and 6 Burkes.

This is not a short term solution and yet it will still put a massive demand on retention and requitment.

One of the problems with that idea is that the US has its own problems with its building capacity. I believe the oldest ABs will now have to serve an extra 5 years before retirement to cover their own shortfall in ship numbers.

Plus I honestly don’t see this federal government spending money on building ships overseas. The only exception might be if it were impossible or uneconomic to build in Australia.

Besides I don’t think the problem is lack of capability to build sophisticated warships in Australia. We are about to embark on the construction of one of the most advanced ships in the world to be built in one of the world’s most technologically advanced ship yards.

The question of how many Hunters we will eventually get and the right balance of the surface fleet seems to me to be a discussion for another day. The Hunter is currently the only proper warship we have planned so I say get it into service and ramp up production as quickly as possible.

 

[MickB]

This isn’t the worst idea. My main question is why would they be built in WA and not SA? Is Osbourne maxed out?

I think there are significant economies of scale available from having all MFU production at one site if possible.

This is the other part of Volkodav's idea, if we create a hub with experance building and maintaining Burkes then the USN will prob take advantage of this for their own maintaince.

 

[Todjaeger]

Besides I don’t think the problem is lack of capability to build sophisticated warships in Australia. We are about to embark on the construction of one of the most advanced ships in the world to be built in one of the world’s most technologically advanced ship yards.

I think it might be less a question of capability to build and more a capacity to build with capacity being the issue. AFAIK (and if I have this wrong, please correct me) but ASC/Osborne is the only currently active shipbuilding concern in Australia that have constructed warships. The Civmec facility in Henderson likely could build warships but AFAIK it has not done so, and the BAE facility at the Williamstown Dockyard is IIRC gone, with Cockatoo having been closed for years (decades?)

Civmec might be able to get stood up as a 2nd yard able to construct warships, but as of right now, if Australia decided today that it needed more warships, it's only option would be to attempt to accelerate production of the Hunter-class frigates. If an additional type or class of warship was deemed needed by the RAN, Australia would either need to divert resources away from the Hunter-class build, or seek production capacity overseas.
At least unless/until Australia is able to establish a 2nd facility.

From my POV though, whilst there could be some benefits to Australia having a 2nd yard for warship construction, there are some potential drawbacks too. Particularly given AusGov's rather poor history in ordering vessels in a timely manner to sustain production. If there were two yards able to build warships, then enough orders would need to be placed regularly to sustain the work at both facilities. A lull in production could end up killing off production at both facilities.

 

[Stampede]

What you are describing is basically the Dutch Holland, Spanish BAM, Danish Knud Rasmussen (though this is a quite specialised Polar design) or Thetis.

To be honest, when multi mission ships began being discussed to replace the Armidales in the mid/late 2000s, these are the sort of ship we (industry) thought was on the cards.

When the government changed the rhetoric under Johnston switched to small fast frigates and patrol vessels, although it was never particularly clear what he had in mind. The suspicion was, considering his parochialism and allegences, Austal Trimaran frigates and more aluminium patrol boats.

To be honest, a slower (35kt plus instead of 45kt plus), more durable and better equipped LCS 2 type frigate wouldn't be a bad thing, just not necessarily the best fit or value for the RAN.

With the distances involved the French probably had the right idea with the Floreal and preceding D'Estienne d'Orves class avisos or, off shore patrol ships / colonial sloops.

The thing is, there is no one solution, no one way forward. What you get next needs to factor what you already have and how everything fits together.

If you have a sustainable number of high end major combatants you can afford to have vertually unarmed OPVs and PBs for constabulary work. If you have a limited number of mid level combatants, and a moderate number of upgraded patrol frigates, the size and capability of the minor warfare vessels becomes more critical.

Thanks Volk

A big bunch of trade offs!

I guess from what I propose is that I would not expect a great deal of extra coin needed for what I'd consider a good return on investment.
Should not detract too much from other RAN projects.

Academic , but just my point of view.

Thanks for you response and that of others.


Like many, the process of the Review outcome is a frustration.

Regards S

 

[Julian 82]

I'm not familiar with Brown, but I think I get what your alluding to re investment in a vessel.
I probably differ to some on DT in that I can see a place for a vessel in between a constabulary vessel and a MFU.

Robust constabulary vessel for want of a better description.

Many navy's / coast guards have vessels similar in size to a light frigate.
Eg the Holland Class from The Netherlands.

In general terms, a vessel of sufficient size to provide range and persistence from shore
for a respectable amount of time with good sea keeping ability.

Not a boat with a small gun , but a true medium calibre weapon , typically a 76mm with a full suite of aviation facilities for a medium sized helicopter.

A good number of RHIBs and a crew composition and sensor suite appropriate to the systems installed.

No ASW, SSM or SAM just the above, but still a platform that has some scope for limited upgrade should the need arise.

The problem I have always had with the Arafura Class is it is not one thing or the other.

Sure, it's a vast improvement on the former patrol boat generations, but for me it still falls short on capability.

It's a shame it's so close.

Just that bit longer and heavier it would do what I describe above.

Same sensors and a few extra crew and you would get that "robust constabulary vessel"

Is this what the Naval review is pitching for in a Tier Two vessel.

No bloody idea,

However this would be my pick.
A vessel that can provide more options than the Arafura design.

Additionally I'd still build a dozen MFUs.

This would be a balanced RAN in my opinion.


Cheers S

I always thought the Fassmer OPV80 was the better design for its size and displacement. It came with a hangar and the capacity to mount a 76mm main gun. Good range and low crew. I think Chile uses them in subantarctic waters. Also bought by Colombian navy and the German Federal Coast Guard. The only downside was Fassmer had partnered with Austal for the local build.

Luerssen‘s OPV90 would have been even better.

 

[Bob53]

One thing though, is we have no real option but the path we have taken for the SSNs, we do have other options for building Burkes or Burke derivatives. The US is in no better shape for exporting Burkes than they are for Virginia's, but South Korea is at least and possibly Japan.

I’d also say the South Korean designs are a bit more modern and have a bit more room from growth over the ABs. And 100% the South Koreans have more capacity to build additional ships than the US yards. There might be some changes to the VLS config swapping out the Korean Missile Cells for Mk41 and sone crew accomodation redesigns required but suspect these would be as close to MOTS as we could find.

Sejong the Great class Guided Missile Destroyer DDG ROK Navy

sejong the great class guided missile destroyer kdx-iii korean navy rok ddg aegis sm-2mr rim-66 mk.41 vls

www.seaforces.org

 

[hauritz]

I think it might be less a question of capability to build and more a capacity to build with capacity being the issue. AFAIK (and if I have this wrong, please correct me) but ASC/Osborne is the only currently active shipbuilding concern in Australia that have constructed warships. The Civmec facility in Henderson likely could build warships but AFAIK it has not done so, and the BAE facility at the Williamstown Dockyard is IIRC gone, with Cockatoo having been closed for years (decades?)

Civmec might be able to get stood up as a 2nd yard able to construct warships, but as of right now, if Australia decided today that it needed more warships, it's only option would be to attempt to accelerate production of the Hunter-class frigates. If an additional type or class of warship was deemed needed by the RAN, Australia would either need to divert resources away from the Hunter-class build, or seek production capacity overseas.
At least unless/until Australia is able to establish a 2nd facility.

From my POV though, whilst there could be some benefits to Australia having a 2nd yard for warship construction, there are some potential drawbacks too. Particularly given AusGov's rather poor history in ordering vessels in a timely manner to sustain production. If there were two yards able to build warships, then enough orders would need to be placed regularly to sustain the work at both facilities. A lull in production could end up killing off production at both facilities.

I agree we need a second shipyard building warships. I think if the navy does move to a larger surface fleet of between 15 to 18 ships there would be enough work for two yards particularly if replacements for NZs frigates are factored as well.

A sobering thought is that even if both facilities managed to produce one new ship a year between them from the early 2030s we would still be struggling to push the surface combatant fleet numbers much above 12 by the 2040.

Even if we stretched the ANZACs operational lives out to 35 years most of them would be gone by the end of the next decade.

 

[ngatimozart]

In this Naval News clip, it is stated that "Australasia" has displayed interest in the Arrowhead 140 design:
Babcock Type 31 and Arrowhead 140 design in Naval News
This would seem to be an ideal candidate for a tier 2 vessel in terms of cost, range, size, flexibility and future upgradability.

I watched this earlier this morning and there are only two nations in Australasia, so it makes me wonder if it's NZ, not Australia, that they are specifically referring to.

I’d also say the South Korean designs are a bit more modern and have a bit more room from growth over the ABs. And 100% the South Koreans have more capacity to build additional ships than the US yards. There might be some changes to the VLS config swapping out the Korean Missile Cells for Mk41 and sone crew accomodation redesigns required but suspect these would be as close to MOTS as we could find.

Sejong the Great class Guided Missile Destroyer DDG ROK Navy

sejong the great class guided missile destroyer kdx-iii korean navy rok ddg aegis sm-2mr rim-66 mk.41 vls

www.seaforces.org

Yes, the KDXIII is definitely an option. It is my belief that we are better served by looking at all options rather than just USN / RN ones. Modern warships are more about systems compatibility, rather than having the same hulls and machinery. The RAN already as systems that are compatible with USN ones and the ROKN / JMSDF are both highly capable of integrating with USN forces. The ROKN use the Mk-41 VLS, AEGIS, CEC etc., and you would be able to stipulate your CMS, weapons, sensor, comms etc., requirements. If there isn't Australian capacity to build the six required hulls, then why not have the hulls built and machinery installed in SK, then move the hulls to Australia for fitting out. It's time to move away from the USN / RN hull and machinery fixation, looking at the systems instead.

I agree we need a second shipyard building warships. I think if the navy does move to a larger surface fleet of between 15 to 18 ships there would be enough work for two yards particularly if replacements for NZs frigates are factored as well.

A sobering thought is that even if both facilities managed to produce one new ship a year between them from the early 2030s we would still be struggling to push the surface combatant fleet numbers much above 12 by the 2040.

Even if we stretched the ANZACs operational lives out to 35 years most of them would be gone by the end of the next decade.

Don't presume that NZ will build its frigate replacements in Australia. That has never been stated and is not a given. It's somewhat arrogant of Aussie posters to make such a presumption. There are many valid reasons why we shouldn't and few why we should.

 

[76mmGuns]

I agree we need a second shipyard building warships. I think if the navy does move to a larger surface fleet of between 15 to 18 ships there would be enough work for two yards particularly if replacements for NZs frigates are factored as well.

A sobering thought is that even if both facilities managed to produce one new ship a year between them from the early 2030s we would still be struggling to push the surface combatant fleet numbers much above 12 by the 2040.

Even if we stretched the ANZACs operational lives out to 35 years most of them would be gone by the end of the next decade.

Agree. The navy of 1995 will still form the bulk of our navy in 2035. Won't see the full revamped fleet of 9(+?) hunters and nuke subs til 2040's. I think many of us on this forum won't be around to see it. While understandable why, it's really slow.

 

[Redlands18]

I agree we need a second shipyard building warships. I think if the navy does move to a larger surface fleet of between 15 to 18 ships there would be enough work for two yards particularly if replacements for NZs frigates are factored as well.

A sobering thought is that even if both facilities managed to produce one new ship a year between them from the early 2030s we would still be struggling to push the surface combatant fleet numbers much above 12 by the 2040.

Even if we stretched the ANZACs operational lives out to 35 years most of them would be gone by the end of the next decade.

5 Nov 2023 is the 30th anniversary of the Anzac being laid down.

I watched this earlier this morning and there are only two nations in Australasia, so it makes me wonder if it's NZ, not Australia, that they are specifically referring to.

Yes, the KDXIII is definitely an option. It is my belief that we are better served by looking at all options rather than just USN / RN ones. Modern warships are more about systems compatibility, rather than having the same hulls and machinery. The RAN already as systems that are compatible with USN ones and the ROKN / JMSDF are both highly capable of integrating with USN forces. The ROKN use the Mk-41 VLS, AEGIS, CEC etc., and you would be able to stipulate your CMS, weapons, sensor, comms etc., requirements. If there isn't Australian capacity to build the six required hulls, then why not have the hulls built and machinery installed in SK, then move the hulls to Australia for fitting out. It's time to move away from the USN / RN hull and machinery fixation, looking at the systems instead.

Don't presume that NZ will build its frigate replacements in Australia. That has never been stated and is not a given. It's somewhat arrogant of Aussie posters to make such a presumption. There are many valid reasons why we shouldn't and few why we should.

There are half a dozen shipbuilders in half a dozen countries at present who can offer NZ Frigates off hot production lines in the next 5-6 years, other than the Hunter class, which I suspect will be too expensive, how is Australia supposed to be in anyway competitive?

 

[aussienscale]

You dont know how to moderate a forum, nor any of the moderators.

Was nice knowing you, not

 

[Todjaeger]

There are half a dozen shipbuilders in half a dozen countries at present who can offer NZ Frigates off hot production lines in the next 5-6 years, other than the Hunter class, which I suspect will be too expensive, how is Australia supposed to be in anyway competitive?

It is possible, but it would depend on a number of factors. If (big IF, at least until the naval review is released, next year...) it was determined that the RAN needed something like a GP or patrol frigate, in addition to the currently planned vessel types like the Hunter-class FFG and Hobart-class DDG, there might be interest on the part of the Kiwis. This interest might be increased if future RAN and RNZN designs were to fit modular systems like the ones which the Danes have pioneered. Originally these were StanFlex systems, but now SH Defence has developed the Cube (something new I just learned of today).

This could enable a class to be designed and built in a FFBNW fashion for a number of systems, which could then be provided on an 'as needed' basis from a pool of modules. I need to learn more about what Cube modules are available or possible, but using StanFlex as a guide, it might be that a RAN vessel might be deploying to an area where more air defence would be a good idea, and therefore an extra module or two of VLS would be good. OTOH a RNZN vessel might not normally need that, to would not have such modules routinely fitted. Same would hold true for something like AShM. I would imagine that there would be a certain minimum baseline fitout for such vessels like a fixed Mk 41 VLS with nn-number of cells and perhaps a permanently mounted Mk 45 5"/127mm gun.

If the two nations can agree on a basic overall fitout and locations for future modules, and then a common CMS and sensor fitout, that might be to the advantage of both nations.

Or, it might be worth seeing if a yard overseas could produce a common design for both navies, to then be fitted out in Australia and/or NZ. Just a thought.

 

[Morgo]

Don't presume that NZ will build its frigate replacements in Australia. That has never been stated and is not a given. It's somewhat arrogant of Aussie posters to make such a presumption. There are many valid reasons why we shouldn't and few why we should.

Don't make us invade you.

Or worse, let rugby league players join the Wallabies. We might actually give the All Blacks a match.

 

[Morgo]

I agree we need a second shipyard building warships. I think if the navy does move to a larger surface fleet of between 15 to 18 ships there would be enough work for two yards particularly if replacements for NZs frigates are factored as well.

A sobering thought is that even if both facilities managed to produce one new ship a year between them from the early 2030s we would still be struggling to push the surface combatant fleet numbers much above 12 by the 2040.

Even if we stretched the ANZACs operational lives out to 35 years most of them would be gone by the end of the next decade.

I don't think we do. I think the biggest threat to being able to maintain the workforce / avoid valleys of death is by concentrating shipbuilding in a single yard. It somewhat future proofs shipbuilding against peace dividends / shortsighted governments.