Popular for VTS systems especially Kongsberg Norcontrol VTS used by port/harbour authorities. They have a line of products for navies but focus mainly on the OPV market (radar, C2).
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I honestly have no opinion on which one is better. It was simply a question. Being from the European side of the pond, I don't have much knowledge around the AGEIS radar & command system, so it's 'interesting' to find out what actually other people know, rather than googling it.
Sometimes even Defence Pro's like myself have to ask for assistance.
Forgive me if I've misread, but you seem to be suggesting that Australia has a hand in the NSM's IIR seeker & the Northrop-Grumman radar of the E-7, & makes the systems of the MC-55.
AFAIK the NSM seeker was around long before Australia signed up to buy the missile, & Australia's main roles in both the E-7 & MC-55 were defining the requirement & paying for development in the USA. Defining the requirements in detail is definitely significant, & AFAIK Australia is a very knowledgeable & sophisticated customer in this area, but it doesn't mean that, for example, the Osprey 50 radar (designed & made in Scotland) in the MC-55 is Australian. I've not heard that all the equipment in the MC-55 is public, but according to everything I've read it was all put together by L3Harris in the USA.
While I understand there are higher priorities does anyone know if there is a project name for the replacement of Australia’s Southern Ocean patrol capability?
I could be wrong, but I believe Australia currently uses the ADV Ocean protector and ABFC Ocean shield for this requirement and they are both end of life around the mid-late 30s which is when a replacement would be due. As naval projects take ~15 years from start to delivery this should be starting around now.
Personally, I think this could become a more crucial requirement as it would be in-service when the Antarctic Treaty System comes up for revision in 2048 and it would support Australia’s stance (Whatever that ends up being – Likely to extend the treaty) if it can be shown that Australia takes the protection of Australian sovereignty in the area seriously. This would be by providing presence, fishery protection, surveillance, air-sea rescue as well as supporting scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
For this requirement would Australia likely look to a similar civilian ship purchase, or would a purpose-built naval ship be preferred and If a purpose-built ship is preferred would something like the Canadian Harry DeWolf class or maybe something more like the Danish Thetis class replacement be suitable?
I could be wrong, but I believe Australia currently uses the ADV Ocean protector and ABFC Ocean shield for this requirement and they are both end of life around the mid-late 30s which is when a replacement would be due. As naval projects take ~15 years from start to delivery this should be starting around now.
Personally, I think this could become a more crucial requirement as it would be in-service when the Antarctic Treaty System comes up for revision in 2048 and it would support Australia’s stance (Whatever that ends up being – Likely to extend the treaty) if it can be shown that Australia takes the protection of Australian sovereignty in the area seriously. This would be by providing presence, fishery protection, surveillance, air-sea rescue as well as supporting scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
For this requirement would Australia likely look to a similar civilian ship purchase, or would a purpose-built naval ship be preferred and If a purpose-built ship is preferred would something like the Canadian Harry DeWolf class or maybe something more like the Danish Thetis class replacement be suitable?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
It was announced circa 2015 that Australia & Norway would jointly develop the JSM with significant technical input from Australian companies into the seeker design, I don’t think that there was any involvement in the original NSM design.
Norway and Australia to cooperate on Joint Strike Missile-development - Kongsberg Defence & Aerospace
Naval Strike Missile NSM JSM Kongsberg Defence
You can buy cheap chips that could power everything from mobile phones to missiles for between $10 and $20 a chip. They have indefinite shelf lives. More sophisticated chips for AI applications, you don't need anything to special, perhaps a mid range laptop chip. If Australia were to invest a lazy $10 to $20 million it could probably stockpile enough CPUs to see them through several wars.
Bluey 006
Active Member
If we do head down the two-tier surface combatant path as suggested in the DSR.
- The tier 2 vessels should be an addition to the fleet, not at the expense of the 12 major surface combatants (IMHO in a perfect world the majors would be increased to 18 – 9 frigates + 6 AWD destroyers + 3 x UxV cruisers) - after what's happened with Army, I wait with bated breath.
- The “corvettes” or Tier 2 class should offer new capabilities not just be a smaller less capable platform that is an excuse to reduce the number of Tier 1 combatants. The new capability I refer to here is high levels of stealth.
As for the tier 2 vessels, a large stealth corvette designed as a compact and highly stealthy vessel that can operate in high-intensity war situations, using its stealth to penetrate anti-access/ area-denial defences makes good sense. It would be capable of being deployed in maritime interdiction, coastal strike, littoral defence and escort, special forces support, intelligence, Surveillance & Reconnaissance (ISR), anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASuW) and anti-air warfare missions.
The challenge is developing a platform with all that capability that doesn’t cost the earth. That said, many European nations have been successful in delivering vessels with high capability at a reasonable cost.
A vessel of this nature would be consistent with the DSR goal of “a greater number of lethal vessels with enhanced long-range strike (maritime and land) and air defence capabilities, together with the ability to provide a presence in our northern maritime approaches”.
I understand Lurssen (now NVL Group) has pitched the C90 Corvette. However, for a long time, I have liked the Lurssen Multi-Role Light Frigate concept as a base platform to develop and fulfil the “stealth corvette” role for RAN. Better stealth characteristics, better growth margins, more room for strike weapons.
Last edited:
While in NZ working on the grey ferry for 4 weeks, i came across US pilots on Seasprites, Aus officers and british senior sailors. All moved to NZ during a recruitment campaign to increase numbers. The pilots moved over after serveral years flying in US, able to advance in the SeaSprite quickly and saved a lot of money for NZ, which was used to move their families who loved the region more then a remote US Posting.We don't allow them too because generally speaking they can't play good rugby
Seriously, I don't know but I served with Aussie immigrants in both the RNZAF and RNZN. There weren't as many as the Poms but there were some.
Within my time, i served with Kiwis, Brits after the UK SDR kicked them out, South Africans and Zimbabweans, 2 of which served in SA Navy. Canadians who transferred across. I should add some Indian and Pakistani officers also, who got along quite well together.
Alot of those id met did it for a normal reason, to set their families up somewhere unique and where their skills could transfer. The higher pay of ADF is always nice but it was a lifestyle change, much the same as UK Police move to SA and WA Cops.
A decent targeted recruitment could see numbers rise with financial assistance in moving across like WAPol does. When our Nuke subs come online, as much as Ministers deny it, there will be recruitment for qualified US and UK Nuclear sub experienced people. As long as we offer them Perth and East Coast options, then it will be a welcome change...and a very large pay increase compared with US Navy
Jason_DBF
Member
The Australian submariner pay will be a very attractive carrot to attract US & UK lateral transfers. We just can't actively recruit their submariners.
Last edited:
JSM is not NSM. It is derived from NSM. It's bigger, heavier (without a booster for surface launch, about the same weight as surface-launched NSM with a booster), different engine, longer range & with an RF sensor that NSM does not have.
Kongsberg to upgrade joint strike missiles with RF-seeker sensors - Airforce Technology
Kongsberg Defence Systems has received a contract from the Australian Department of Defence to install its RF-seeker sensors on joint strike missiles (JSM) that will be carried on-board F-35 fighter aircraft.www.airforce-technology.com
BAE Systems Australia technology in Joint Strike Missile
BAE Systems Australia’s technology is another step closer to being used in the Joint Strike Missile (JSM) being developed for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, following the signing of a contract between the Federal Government and Norway's Kongsberg Defence and Aerospace.www.baesystems.com
Yes, but I am unclear why developing the RF seeker before having a program to acquire the missile undermines sovereignty of the RF seeker and Australian RF expertise in developing it? The RF seeker is supplied by BAE Australia for all NSM/JSM sales globally....
I didn't say anything about JSM - deliberately. I specifically asked about the IIR seeker of NSM, not the RF sensor of JSM. I wondered why you referred to RF technology in the context of a missile with an IR seeker.
This bears some similarities to the late 90s South African “Patrol Corvette” program. The SAN put a lot of emphasis on endurance & seakeeping (understandably) and stealth/survivability. The weapons/sensor fit on the other hand was to fairly standard corvette/light frigate standards, with some provisions for future add ons (like towed sonar).
All the contenders were in the 3,200-3,500 ton range, similar to the Lurssen example above, with 7,000-8,000+nm range at 16 knots (proving good endurance can be achieved on a fairly small platform).
Ultimately the SAN chose the Meko A200 - which was the largest design being offered. A fine choice except for the complex CODAG WARP propulsion (CODAD would probably have been a better choice in hindsight, was offered by several shipyards but rejected by the SAN).
If the RAN corvette drama ends with a similar “patrol corvette” WITHOUT impacting the Hunter buy, then it would seem like a pretty good outcome…it would really be an Anzac 2.0 light frigate.
P.S. For a good overview of the South African corvette program and contenders see here: South African Corvette Program - Shipbucket
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I was thinking that for all the debate about pay, the real sticking point for new arrivals these days must be the cost of housing. This is something Defence should consider within the AUKUS budget. We will be spending $10 billion on various SSN upgrades for HMAS Stirling, and presumably a similar amount for an east coast base. If Defence spent one extra billion (out of 368) on building reasonable quality housing for crews next to the base, it would create 1000 to 1500 family homes. If these were available for long term home rentals for RAN SSN crew families at reasonable cost, this would eliminate a major fear of being posted east or west.
This might seem extravagant but I think it would be a good investment. We focus so much on the cost of ship/sub construction and sustainment but leave crew retention to luck or market forces. Money for Defence housing would not be wasted - it would be an asset Defence could keep. In fact it would take pressure off the private rental market in each city.
I think one question that needs to be addressed is what role the navy will play in regards to patrolling Australia’s north. At the moment the navy is largely responsible for providing and operating a constabulary force. If rumours are correct about the navy losing or reducing the number of Arafuras it will get then that will effect its ability to perform that function.
If the navy were to replace these vessels with larger frigates then these would probably be too large and expensive to operate as patrol vessels.
This would seem to push the case for a proper corvette sized vessels that would be better armed but more suited to patrol work.
Alternatively the navy could maintain its fleet of OPVs and opt to split its order of frigates into a mix of Hunters and light frigates.
Of course another option would be that the navy gets out of the patrol business and that role is handed of to another body such as border force.
If the navy were to replace these vessels with larger frigates then these would probably be too large and expensive to operate as patrol vessels.
This would seem to push the case for a proper corvette sized vessels that would be better armed but more suited to patrol work.
Alternatively the navy could maintain its fleet of OPVs and opt to split its order of frigates into a mix of Hunters and light frigates.
Of course another option would be that the navy gets out of the patrol business and that role is handed of to another body such as border force.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Defence housing is highly subsidised. Defence Housing today is of quite good quality. On Base single quarters are all single rooms, when I left the Army in 2001, ORs quarters were 4 bedroom units with a bathroom, kitchenette and lounge room. Married Quarters are done through Defence Housing Australia (DHA) who lease housing from the public for 7-year terms. The members pay a subsidised rent, that is below market value.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think Border Force would struggle to man and maintain a fleet of Arafura's, the big issue is the population density of Northern Australia. From Townsville to Perth, you have just 2 population centres of any real size, Cairns and Darwin. To find enough personnel to man 5-6 Arafura's each as well as the specialists needed maintain them, would be a big ask.
In case anyone was wondering the urgent, short, sharp navy review was handed over to the government on Friday.
The review findings will now be further considered by the government over the next six months.
The review findings will now be further considered by the government over the next six months.
That is my point. The navy cannot abandon the constabulary role. If anything it will need to find the balance between improving its war fighting capability while still performing its patrol work.
In practical terms it means that disposing of the Arafuras and instead opting for something like the type 31 isn’t that feasible. Ships of that size would be complete overkill and horrendously expensive to operate as patrol vessels.
Even just retaining a smaller fleet of just the six already under construction isn’t an adequate solution. A dozen OPVs is probably the minimum requirement for that job. In fact as we move into a time of Grey Zone conflicts we may need even more OPV sized vessels, not less.
If you continue to build OPVs and instead opt to replace some of the Hunters with a greater number of smaller frigates then this will not be quick solution. Those vessels would simply replace the Hunters on the production line sometime in the mid to late 2030s. Not exactly a quick solution. It could still happen but that is more likely to help with long term structural changes in the navy. Personally I think the navy probably needs to address the balance between ASW and Air Warfare vessels so I would prefer to see a new class of Air Warfare destroyer replace the last of the production line Hunters.
That still leaves open the question of how the government can quickly boost the size of its surface fleet, retain its patrol capability, not greatly increase its manpower requirements and of course stay inside a tight budget.
The only answer I see is to replace the Arafuras in the production line with corvettes. Corvettes are small enough to operate as patrol vessels while adding some extra fire power to the surface fleet.
Not ideal for some and I admit my own reservations with corvettes, but I can’t see any other solution.
I think it was August 2022 that government announced the DSR would be conducted.
The reviews public findings came out April 2023 , which for Navy meant no detailed updates other than another review of 6 months.
The findings were handed to government recently for them to ponder for another half year to make a call as to the structure of our future fleet.
Now the rhetoric in the DSR was all about a deteriating situation and getting capability quickly.
I can see some of that with the other two services , but really it's on a budget and smacks more of 1929 not 1939.
It the true situation is dire, a round table chat with government and uniforms with a coffee and biscuit could wrap up what's needed in a good afternoon tea.
Just make a decision.
I don't know the outcome of the review but I'm confident much will stay the same.
LHDs, Supply Class, Hobart's, Cape's,Collins will soldier on.
The variables
Arafura Class and their varied mission roles and the Hunter Class.
Do we need two years to sort that out.
I find it very difficult to believe they did not know in Aug 2022 what they wanted Navy to look like going forward.
A tier two something and fleet numbers will be interesting.
Cheers S
Yeah, I tend to think this is really just a cost cutting exercise disguised as a review.
The trick is to make it look like you are accomplishing something while in reality you are just conductiing a never ending series of reviews. To my mind the whole idea of upgrading the navy to meet the Chinese threat started back in 2009 with the release of Rudd's Defence White Paper. Fourteen years on and still not one new ship in service and key projects like new frigates and submarines are still about a decade away.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle can share the blame on this.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really. A patrol vessel is defined by role, not by size. The RoDN's Thetis-class patrol vessels are the size of frigates and sometimes referred to as patrol frigates, with a displacement of ~3,500 tons, a length of 112 m and a beam of 14 m. The armament however whilst possibly heavy for a patrol vessel considering they have a 76 mm/62 cal. gun, is well under what most frigates would be fitted out with.
Size is potentially a useful measure to distinguish between a frigate and a corvette, but that does not really carry over into vessels intended primarily for patrolling roles. An OPV and a corvette could very well be of approximately the same size, but would intended for very different roles with a correspondingly different fitout, as the role demands different capabilities.
Once a vessel starts to get below a certain size and displacement, then they become much less suitable for transiting long distances and/or crossing blue water/open ocean. The low end of OPV sizes (~80 m long, ~1,500 tons +/-) is right around the minimum for some of these requirements. If a vessel were to try and operate whilst being even smaller or lower displacement, then the vessel and crew could run into serious difficulties and risk, particularly if they had to weather a storm at sea and no port or harbour within a safe distance. What an OPV will usually do with the available space and displacement (beyond the DWT of a vessel) is to have victuals and bunkerage enabling long distance ops of corresponding duration.
A corvette OTOH would typically have much of the space and displacement used to fit weapons, combat systems, sensors and gen sets. As a result, both the transit distances as well as vessel endurance is typically lower for a corvette of a given size when compared with an OPV of similar size and displacement.
What this in turn means, is that if a number of the planned Arafura-class OPV's are cancelled in favour of some hypothetical corvette of a similar size and displacement, to also primarily operate in a patrol/constab role, then these hypothetical corvettes would be limited to much shorter endurance missions, and would also need to stick much closer to port. In that essence, they (the corvettes) might find themselves only able to operate in areas where the Attack-class or Fremantle-class patrol boats operated because they just could not have sufficient food or fuel loaded.
One of the other things is that typically an OPV, being built for a patrolling rather than a combat role, will usually be significantly less expensive to have built than a warship like a corvette or frigate of comparable size would be. Part of this is due to a much simpler weapons fitout, but also due to a less comprehensive sensor and CMS fitout. As an aside, I seem to recall that the electronics fiout to a modern warship is typically a significant portion of the initial acquisition costs, to the tune of a third to half the initial cost. Now IIRC the CMS and combat data systems fitted to the Arafura-class OPV, the SaabTech 9LV, are more than is normally fitted to an OPV, and likely put the cost of the RAN OPV's higher (I seem to recall a figure of AUD$300 mil. per vessel in 2018 dollars). This is a bit more than the ~NZD$110 mil. per vessel in 2010 dollars for the RNZN's OPVs. However, this figure is still well below the FY2017 cost of €400 mil. for the Braunschweig-class corvettes, which would otherwise have cost something like AUD$660 mil.
IMO it would be much better for Australia to keep with the Arafura-class OPV to meet patrolling needs, and get a proper class of frigates or destroyers to meet the need for potential combatants. To try and have a small vessel that can do both would IMO be a decision to spend too much money (and time, a key factor as well) to get another call of vessel that can do either patrolling or combat, but would perform those roles poorly.