Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[old faithful]

I thought that the navy review was all about getting hulls on the water asap.
Offers from Spain, and other Euro countries were made public very quickly.
Now it seems that the government can't decide between the blonde, the brunette and the red head, and usually in that case, the ugly one wins.

 

[John Newman]

I thought that the navy review was all about getting hulls on the water asap.
Offers from Spain, and other Euro countries were made public very quickly.
Now it seems that the government can't decide between the blonde, the brunette and the red head, and usually in that case, the ugly one wins.

And we are surprised because why?

I’m sure the motto of this Government is:

“why do today that you can leave until tomorrow”

 

[StingrayOZ]

The latest press seems to indicate we aren't converting Frigates/Destroyers into corvettes. From the sources published, if the Hunters are cut back its for something bigger and more capable.

OPV's

Instead we are possibly converting surveying/MCM onto OPV's, and thus freeing up crew for small batch of OPV with some level of self protection.

Regarding the OPV's I think it will turn out something like this.
6 OPV80's with a 25mm gun and nothing else. These are the first batches that are currently already built.
6 OPV80's with a slightly more capable fitout. Probably better able to support the MCM/Surveying roles.
6 OPV90's built with 76mm 8 VLS(32 ESSM), 4xNSM, 9LV, giraffe or Ceafar. They can launch towed array, or UUV, or UAV etc. Your up gun OPV.

That would be 18 OPV's. Given that we were looking at ~20 OCV's, or 18 OPV's, this would seem to be a small variation of the plan. This replaced existing, less capable ships like the Adelaide class patrol boat (300t), Huons (700t), Leeuwin class survey (2000t), Paluma class hydrographic (300t)

While there are two hull designs the opv80 and the opv90 would for most purposes, be basically the same. Its a ~10m larger. Same builder, same tooling, same materials, same contractors, same logistics, same contracts etc. Quick, cheap, easy. If in 10 years we decide we want to replace the 6 OPV's with something more capable, like a type 31, I am sure, we could dispose of 6 OPV's, that is exactly the type of ship our regional friends could operate. We then go build new ships. You could even take all the weapons off them, and they would be great OPV's for EEZ stuff. I don't really see why this is an issue at all. We budgeted, costed, started to build this. Going a bit more combatant, than dedicated mine hunter, is honestly, not a major deal breaker or change, and either way, you are probably going to use the OPV90 hull either way. Its fine, move on.

Destroyers
What is definitely up in the air is that Australia needs more capable destroyers. We have 220 TLAM, that is a capability, we have identified, and purchased and are procuring. While not able to take out mainland China, it would be enough to take out any Chinese base in our region that was to be established in Fiji/Vanuatu/PNG/Solomons/Tonga/NZ etc. As such, it no longer makes any real sense for China to seek a base in this region. It would also give pause before sending a small Chinese fleet in to annoy the region.

But we need a platform that is able to fire the dam things. We probably want SM-3 capability, for much the same reason, deter deployment of missiles within our region. The Hobarts have no growth capability, they have no endurance improvement capability, they have an old radar and no power improvement capability. And we only built 3 of the bloody things and we are going to take all of them out of the water.

Eventually we may be able to fire them from a SSN, but even then that 3 boat capability isn't going to happen until ~2040+. At the same time we are going to take our Collins boats out of the water. Hassling the Americans to get subs earlier isn't a strategy that will get you anywhere, they can't. Even then, launching TLAM from SSN isn't ideal, against a peer with significant sub capabilities. It is a waste of a very valuable SSN. A SSN by itself doesn't have the land attack load out capability.

So, from what I see, reading the tea leaves, basically Australia is looking at 3 proper, destroyers, as fast as possible. To pay for this, is cutting hunter from 9 to 6. So be it. But proper destroyers. Trading 1 ship with 32 vls for another with 48 probably or may not meet the capability requirement. Being the rule of 3's, the big destroyer would probably carry something like 48-64+ TLAM, while a Hobart could carry something like 8-16 in combination to its air defence role. You will have only one of each deployed usually at a time. So a total deterrent of ~ 56-96 TLAM. Decent.

From the American point of view, something like 3 burkes (capability, not those specific ships, capability not platform remember) it what it would mean. It is pointless to worry about hull numbers, or doing it with out costing money, or getting something smaller. This is the capability Australia needs. Just build it. IMO forget tier 2, forget corvettes, forget everything else. We need a class of ships to fire the missiles we have and will procure. We have the yards, we have the talent, we have money, we have the technology. What we lack is the will and the focus.

What is important is capability. Not platforms, not hull numbers. You have things, but gain no overall capability. Replacing An Anzac with 2 OPV's does nothing for firing TLAMs and deterring a major peer from establishing bases.

Sitting on this until 2024 helps no one. The world is on fire. Thousands are being killed. The Wests armoury is empty. The sky is falling. Not making a decision is going to cause regional instability and uncertainty. Companies are going bust. People understand, we can see what is happening, countries are literally being invaded. We need to get the wheels moving on this right now.

We need to prioritise the capabilities we need. And do it with urgency and purpose. Not have review after review after review, then keep the results secret, until the opportune time politically. The time is now.

 

[Morgo]

Is it just me, or looking at this from a distance, it appears a complete mess. I am totally confused, or should I say perplexed as to why the Navy is considering corvettes. As to the idea of two tiers,, OK that sounds OK,, assume the first tier at around 10,000 tonnes, that would be the Hunter class, as to the second tier,, maybe something in the 5000 tonne to 7000 tonne class. This corvette stuff, I just dont know where it is coming from. If we say a corvette is say 2000 tonne to 2500t tonne,, that is a lot smaller than the Meko 360 Anzac class at around 3500t.. And the Anzac class was found to be too small, thus by definition any corvette is going to be way too small.

The F100 class seems to be doing quite well, it may well be that for the second tier group of ships,, more F100 with an austere weapon fit would work,, or a similar sized hull.

Going back the last 50 years, the Vampire class, quite good for its day but a bit small
The Charles F Adamas class, good but with no helicopter capability
The Oliver Hazard Perry class,, worked out OK, but a bit small, aluminium superstructure, and no large gun,, no compartmental superstructure, thus liable to fire spreading
The Meko 360 Anzac class, work OK, but too small and getting old
The F100 class, work well, an older design, but only three built, and a somewhat cramped inside
Arafura class,, much better than a patrol boat,,but why no helicopter hangar,, is true they cannot land S60 helicopter? Possibly something a fraction larger would be better
Hunter class,, good on paper but very expensive

Of all seven class listed above, none appear to have been total success

To be fair, the candidate “corvettes” that have been discussed in the press (for whatever that’s worth) are between 3000 (Navantia’s ALFA 3000) and 7000 tonnes (Constellation class) so it seems like these “corvettes” will be at least as capable as the ANZACs.

The Luerssen C90 has been mentioned but I think this would only make sense if replacing the last 6 OPVs.

 

[Todjaeger]

The latest press seems to indicate we aren't converting Frigates/Destroyers into corvettes. From the sources published, if the Hunters are cut back its for something bigger and more capable.

OPV's

Instead we are possibly converting surveying/MCM onto OPV's, and thus freeing up crew for small batch of OPV with some level of self protection.

Regarding the OPV's I think it will turn out something like this.
6 OPV80's with a 25mm gun and nothing else. These are the first batches that are currently already built.
6 OPV80's with a slightly more capable fitout. Probably better able to support the MCM/Surveying roles.
6 OPV90's built with 76mm 8 VLS(32 ESSM), 4xNSM, 9LV, giraffe or Ceafar. They can launch towed array, or UUV, or UAV etc. Your up gun OPV.

Good grief, I hope Australia does not spend the coin required to build and fitout any OPV90's as described. That sort of fitout is expensive and capable enough to be worth targeting with something, whilst still at heart being a constab/patrol vessel and not a proper warship. This means that the design and construction is not going to have as significant a degree of survivability and damage control as a purpose built corvette or frigate would.

That would be 18 OPV's. Given that we were looking at ~20 OCV's, or 18 OPV's, this would seem to be a small variation of the plan. This replaced existing, less capable ships like the Adelaide class patrol boat (300t), Huons (700t), Leeuwin class survey (2000t), Paluma class hydrographic (300t)

While there are two hull designs the opv80 and the opv90 would for most purposes, be basically the same. Its a ~10m larger. Same builder, same tooling, same materials, same contractors, same logistics, same contracts etc. Quick, cheap, easy. If in 10 years we decide we want to replace the 6 OPV's with something more capable, like a type 31, I am sure, we could dispose of 6 OPV's, that is exactly the type of ship our regional friends could operate. We then go build new ships. You could even take all the weapons off them, and they would be great OPV's for EEZ stuff. I don't really see why this is an issue at all. We budgeted, costed, started to build this. Going a bit more combatant, than dedicated mine hunter, is honestly, not a major deal breaker or change, and either way, you are probably going to use the OPV90 hull either way. Its fine, move on.

Destroyers
What is definitely up in the air is that Australia needs more capable destroyers. We have 220 TLAM, that is a capability, we have identified, and purchased and are procuring. While not able to take out mainland China, it would be enough to take out any Chinese base in our region that was to be established in Fiji/Vanuatu/PNG/Solomons/Tonga/NZ etc. As such, it no longer makes any real sense for China to seek a base in this region. It would also give pause before sending a small Chinese fleet in to annoy the region.

But we need a platform that is able to fire the dam things. We probably want SM-3 capability, for much the same reason, deter deployment of missiles within our region. The Hobarts have no growth capability, they have no endurance improvement capability, they have an old radar and no power improvement capability. And we only built 3 of the bloody things and we are going to take all of them out of the water.

Eventually we may be able to fire them from a SSN, but even then that 3 boat capability isn't going to happen until ~2040+. At the same time we are going to take our Collins boats out of the water. Hassling the Americans to get subs earlier isn't a strategy that will get you anywhere, they can't. Even then, launching TLAM from SSN isn't ideal, against a peer with significant sub capabilities. It is a waste of a very valuable SSN. A SSN by itself doesn't have the land attack load out capability.

So, from what I see, reading the tea leaves, basically Australia is looking at 3 proper, destroyers, as fast as possible. To pay for this, is cutting hunter from 9 to 6. So be it. But proper destroyers. Trading 1 ship with 32 vls for another with 48 probably or may not meet the capability requirement. Being the rule of 3's, the big destroyer would probably carry something like 48-64+ TLAM, while a Hobart could carry something like 8-16 in combination to its air defence role. You will have only one of each deployed usually at a time. So a total deterrent of ~ 56-96 TLAM. Decent.

From the American point of view, something like 3 burkes (capability, not those specific ships, capability not platform remember) it what it would mean. It is pointless to worry about hull numbers, or doing it with out costing money, or getting something smaller. This is the capability Australia needs. Just build it. IMO forget tier 2, forget corvettes, forget everything else. We need a class of ships to fire the missiles we have and will procure. We have the yards, we have the talent, we have money, we have the technology. What we lack is the will and the focus.

What is important is capability. Not platforms, not hull numbers. You have things, but gain no overall capability. Replacing An Anzac with 2 OPV's does nothing for firing TLAMs and deterring a major peer from establishing bases.

Sitting on this until 2024 helps no one. The world is on fire. Thousands are being killed. The Wests armoury is empty. The sky is falling. Not making a decision is going to cause regional instability and uncertainty. Companies are going bust. People understand, we can see what is happening, countries are literally being invaded. We need to get the wheels moving on this right now.

We need to prioritise the capabilities we need. And do it with urgency and purpose. Not have review after review after review, then keep the results secret, until the opportune time politically. The time is now.

From my POV, the current gov't emphasis on standoff ordnance, particularly given the specific types indicated or ordered, and where/how they deploy, strike me as being more an effort to look like something is being done, rather than as part of a coherent strategy to achieve a overall capability. The 220 RGM-109 TacToms are being acquired for launch from the three Hobart-class DDG's, which IMO is a waste of effort and resources. At best, the RAN might be able to manage a surge deployment of a pair of DDG's operating together, possibly as part of a larger TF. These are also the only units currently in the fleet which can be loaded with longer-ranged air defence missiles like SM-2's. In the future likely SM-6 or even SM-3, and after a decade or so, we might see the first Hunter-class frigates entering service able to be loaded with the same missiles. The problem as I see it lies in the fact that for at least the next ~10 years the RAN will likely only be able to manage 96 VLS cells at one time which can be loaded with a mix of LACM, SM-2/3/6 and ESSM and more likely only 48 VLS cells with such a mix. Yes, other vessels could likely contribute to an overall air defence umbrella with quad-packed ESSM, but those are missiles more for a mid-range air defence response and not an outer layer response like some of the SM-2's and SM-6. What this condenses down to is that the RAN might be able to have a few VLS cells dedicated to LACM's, but likely only in penny-packet sized strike packages. Given existing examples of Tomahawk LACM usage by the US, like the 7 April 2017 strike on the Syrian Shayrat Airbase, which consisted of 59 Tomahawk missiles, the RAN is going to have issues trying to achieve that volume of fire. This is also worrisome since that strike did not even manage to knock the airbase out, with Syrian aircraft taking off again within hours of the strike.
Australia would likely need a saturation attack capability, particularly given how long in the tooth the Tomahawk family of cruise missiles is.

Continuing with this, I have already raised my concerns about gov't selecting land-based AShM battery platforms, and many of the problems which are associated with making this type of capability viable.

Given the (apparent) current direction by gov't, Australia is likely to end up with ordnance worth hundreds of millions, but still not providing any real contribution to Australia's security. A missile lacking a launch platform is ineffective. A launch platform that cannot be where it is needed, when it is needed, is likewise ineffective. A missile, loaded onto a launch platform that is where it is needed, when it is needed, but does not have awareness of a target, remains ineffective.

I am still awaiting something to come out of the various reviews which I would actually consider sensible.

 

[Bob53]

Is it really the RAN that is considering corvettes, or is that something which gov't is contemplating, following advocacy campaigns conducted by some of the defence 'talking heads' in Australia?

I have been under the impression that the RAN does not really want corvettes, for basically all the reasons why a number of us here have been opposed to them. However, articles have been submitted to defence-related publications and think tanks arguing for corvettes, using arguments that sound (too) good and coming from people who defence planning credentials, to lend some authority. Unfortunately, at least some of these articles look convincing if one does not already understand that smaller hulls have greater limitations in terms of their potential seakeeping as well as the trade off between range & endurance vs. weapons and sensor fitout with requisite gen sets. IIRC one of the more hyperbolic arguments seemed to suggest that a corvette could replace a future AUD$1 bil. warship and be a 'better' choice because it could do the same missions but for a fraction of the cost. The author of this piece is supposed to be an intelligent person with a doctorate (in something financial or economics) with an emphasis on defence. A problem I had with his writing on the subject was that he seemed to ignore engineering limitations in terms of space and displacement.

What I do hope, following advice from an ex-USN admiral, is that gov't will understand that having vessels start dropping below a certain size and displacement will end up delivering vessels not fit for Australian service either in terms of range/endurance or weapons/sensor fitout, or perhaps both. I also hope that the RAN does not end up getting directed to follow an unreasonable path like the USN was with the LCS programme.

The average punter is going to hear we have 18 ships instead of 12. Some of them will be equipped with Fricken laser beams and and we will have more missile launchers and think Good job

 

[StingrayOZ]

Good grief, I hope Australia does not spend the coin required to build and fitout any OPV90's as described. That sort of fitout is expensive and capable enough to be worth targeting with something, whilst still at heart being a constab/patrol vessel and not a proper warship. This means that the design and construction is not going to have as significant a degree of survivability and damage control as a purpose built corvette or frigate would.

Australia has the 76mm guns, self defence VLS, even a spare set of radars. Between the FFG upgrades and the Anzac upgrades we have a lot of still useful and relevant gear. Refurbishment required, new computers etc, but its not like there is nothing in the cupboard. Or just build the OPV90 fitted for but not with anything and put what ever you want when you need it. There is no real reason to have a national discussion about it. Its a OPV.

Its a OPV, it isn't designed as a surface combatant. If it ever finds itself out matched and trapped, it would probably be scuttled. It hard to imagine it not operating under air cover. Its even unlikely to be the primary target of any enemy munitions.

Its doing the mission of our patrol boats, which are 300t aluminium. There is basically no real damage control, an electric fire would probably sink the existing platform.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/hmas-bundaberg-destroyed-in-massive-fire-at-hemmant-brisbane-drydock/news-story/29d1e970a2429cb94849bc0b968d59c0

Australia would likely need a saturation attack capability, particularly given how long in the tooth the Tomahawk family of cruise missiles is.

For the targets Australia would be hitting, it would be fine for the initial strike. This is push button organic strike capability, for our region. Within hours, air force would be using P8's, F-35's and SH to drop tonnage. LRASM, JASSM, harpoon, JDAM. We have more capable strike if we need it. But they aren't 365/24/7 and delivery in less than an hour, and able to launch instantly from a platform already at sea.

But Australia has more tomahawk capability than the whole of NATO minus the USA. Nearly as much cruise missile capability as France or the UK. Looking around our region, drawing 1500 km radius around Australia. Its not nothing. It is about deterring, fleets, makeshift bases and beachhead, not a hardened airfield. A few H6's sitting on tarmac, a destroyer and a couple of frigates. Currently there are no real targets within 2000 km of the Australian EEZ. Lets keep it that way.

Australia isn't engaging the main Chinese force, that will be the US, Japan and Korea throwing and losing carrier groups at that problem. The OPV won't sit between Taiwan and mainland China, it won't be doing FON around South China seas Islands. It again, will be operating in that ~2000km zone around AU. A lot of flat, open, ocean. A OPV90 will be the most powerful vessel in that area. Heck it will be the only naval vessel in that area.

 

[hauritz]

The latest press seems to indicate we aren't converting Frigates/Destroyers into corvettes. From the sources published, if the Hunters are cut back its for something bigger and more capable.

OPV's

Instead we are possibly converting surveying/MCM onto OPV's, and thus freeing up crew for small batch of OPV with some level of self protection.

Regarding the OPV's I think it will turn out something like this.
6 OPV80's with a 25mm gun and nothing else. These are the first batches that are currently already built.
6 OPV80's with a slightly more capable fitout. Probably better able to support the MCM/Surveying roles.
6 OPV90's built with 76mm 8 VLS(32 ESSM), 4xNSM, 9LV, giraffe or Ceafar. They can launch towed array, or UUV, or UAV etc. Your up gun OPV.

That would be 18 OPV's. Given that we were looking at ~20 OCV's, or 18 OPV's, this would seem to be a small variation of the plan. This replaced existing, less capable ships like the Adelaide class patrol boat (300t), Huons (700t), Leeuwin class survey (2000t), Paluma class hydrographic (300t)

While there are two hull designs the opv80 and the opv90 would for most purposes, be basically the same. Its a ~10m larger. Same builder, same tooling, same materials, same contractors, same logistics, same contracts etc. Quick, cheap, easy. If in 10 years we decide we want to replace the 6 OPV's with something more capable, like a type 31, I am sure, we could dispose of 6 OPV's, that is exactly the type of ship our regional friends could operate. We then go build new ships. You could even take all the weapons off them, and they would be great OPV's for EEZ stuff. I don't really see why this is an issue at all. We budgeted, costed, started to build this. Going a bit more combatant, than dedicated mine hunter, is honestly, not a major deal breaker or change, and either way, you are probably going to use the OPV90 hull either way. Its fine, move on.

Destroyers
What is definitely up in the air is that Australia needs more capable destroyers. We have 220 TLAM, that is a capability, we have identified, and purchased and are procuring. While not able to take out mainland China, it would be enough to take out any Chinese base in our region that was to be established in Fiji/Vanuatu/PNG/Solomons/Tonga/NZ etc. As such, it no longer makes any real sense for China to seek a base in this region. It would also give pause before sending a small Chinese fleet in to annoy the region.

But we need a platform that is able to fire the dam things. We probably want SM-3 capability, for much the same reason, deter deployment of missiles within our region. The Hobarts have no growth capability, they have no endurance improvement capability, they have an old radar and no power improvement capability. And we only built 3 of the bloody things and we are going to take all of them out of the water.

Eventually we may be able to fire them from a SSN, but even then that 3 boat capability isn't going to happen until ~2040+. At the same time we are going to take our Collins boats out of the water. Hassling the Americans to get subs earlier isn't a strategy that will get you anywhere, they can't. Even then, launching TLAM from SSN isn't ideal, against a peer with significant sub capabilities. It is a waste of a very valuable SSN. A SSN by itself doesn't have the land attack load out capability.

So, from what I see, reading the tea leaves, basically Australia is looking at 3 proper, destroyers, as fast as possible. To pay for this, is cutting hunter from 9 to 6. So be it. But proper destroyers. Trading 1 ship with 32 vls for another with 48 probably or may not meet the capability requirement. Being the rule of 3's, the big destroyer would probably carry something like 48-64+ TLAM, while a Hobart could carry something like 8-16 in combination to its air defence role. You will have only one of each deployed usually at a time. So a total deterrent of ~ 56-96 TLAM. Decent.

From the American point of view, something like 3 burkes (capability, not those specific ships, capability not platform remember) it what it would mean. It is pointless to worry about hull numbers, or doing it with out costing money, or getting something smaller. This is the capability Australia needs. Just build it. IMO forget tier 2, forget corvettes, forget everything else. We need a class of ships to fire the missiles we have and will procure. We have the yards, we have the talent, we have money, we have the technology. What we lack is the will and the focus.

What is important is capability. Not platforms, not hull numbers. You have things, but gain no overall capability. Replacing An Anzac with 2 OPV's does nothing for firing TLAMs and deterring a major peer from establishing bases.

Sitting on this until 2024 helps no one. The world is on fire. Thousands are being killed. The Wests armoury is empty. The sky is falling. Not making a decision is going to cause regional instability and uncertainty. Companies are going bust. People understand, we can see what is happening, countries are literally being invaded. We need to get the wheels moving on this right now.

We need to prioritise the capabilities we need. And do it with urgency and purpose. Not have review after review after review, then keep the results secret, until the opportune time politically. The time is now.

Yep. The cynic in me says the government will try to sell the idea that whatever replaces the mine hunters and survey ships are corvettes and BAE will either build us improved Hunters or Type 83s from the mid to late 30s.

It could all be smoke a mirrors really since we won't actually end up with extra ships and there won't be any speeding up of deliveries. The only win I am taking from this is that we might be getting proper destroyers albiet not for a long time.

 

[devo99]

(In reply to Stingray's post #6343 and #6347)
If it's an OPV then I don't see much point in switching to OPV90. OPV80 can do the job fine and the general reasoning given behind switching to OPV90 is some form of additional firepower. But if it's just an OPV as you say then what is the need for that firepower?
The weapons fit you initially described would be quite expensive (in money and manpower) for a ship that's job involves being nowhere near enemy missile threats.

 

[spoz]

2000 kms from Australia takes you into Indonesia, the Bismarck Sea and the Solomons. Never been any significant Naval battles there…

There is a military aphorism that no plan survives contact with the enemy. That is particularly true of naval warfare as Yarra (II), Canberra (I), Perth (I) and Sydney (II), amongst many other examples, suggest. When the excreta hits the rotating machinery you use your assets to the best of your ability- and if that means sending “just an OPV90” into harms way you do it, even if reluctantly.

Of course you try to match threat and response but that sometimes does not go at all well - just ask Repulse or PoW. We in uniform accept that, it’s part of the deal, but we sure don’t want to make it a likely situation, where some genius decides that yes, an OPV90 because it has a pop gun and a couple of cells (but probably insufficient DC) is capable of doing a task that blind Freddy knows it can’t. The ship is the best lifebelt, and we need to give combatants of any size the best chance of staying afloat while not compromising the ability to achieve their missions.

And the mission of an OPV, any OPV (and we probably need 12 to do it properly) is constabulary. We shouldn’t try to make them into something which, quite frankly, will detract from their capability to do that. And detract it would as you have to train and exercise with any system (otherwise why fit it) and that would take time from the main game.

 

[devo99]

Of course you try to match threat and response but that sometimes does not go at all well - just ask Repulse or PoW. We in uniform accept that, it’s part of the deal, but we sure don’t want to make it a likely situation, where some genius decides that yes, an OPV90 because it has a pop gun and a couple of cells (but probably insufficient DC) is capable of doing a task that blind Freddy knows it can’t.

The solution to this would hopefully be to get "corvettes" sufficient enough to be more than just a false capability, something like 16-24 cells with a mix of ESSM, SM-2 and Type 07 VLA (something we should be getting imo) with accompanying sensor suite, while being value for money and manpower. Ideally the 12 OPVs stay as 12 OPVs on top of this.

 

[vonnoobie]

My 2 cents and will keep it short and sweet.

Tier 1 - DDG and FFG, Those are the Hunters, Hobarts and what ever possible Destroyer we may get. There is little we can do in this field, One thing we could do is scrap the Hobart upgrade and put that money towards buying something off the shelf from abroad. Best place would probably be from South Korea, Maybe Japan. With the budget of the upgrade we could probably get those 3 DDG's by time the Hobart upgrades are meant to be done and for no extra cost but still have 3 extra far more capable hulls in the water at a time Anzac availability will be plummeting. Industry wont like it but perhaps a deal can be struck for which ever nation supplying to use X% Australian work on those and future jobs or to just do the fit outs in Oz. Few things that could be done but to maximize Australian content considering time constraints will be difficult so thay may be able to be spread out across other work, Maybe.

Tier 2 - GPF's; These are Arrowhead 140's, Mogami's etc Large hulls, minimal crew, capable of being upgraded to do more if needed but generally a simple outfit to do the basics and not a manpower drain. Quite frankly any Tier 2 vessel should be no less then 5,000t at least in the Australian context.

Tier 3 - These are our OPV's, The OPV80's should continue as current contract stands, Follow on work for the potential 6-8 OPV90's should go ahead, if they want to cram a few ESSM aboard I am personally not against that however in this area I think we need to think more about the follow on class and what ever the replacement may be to be set up as a fitted for but not with fit out. Perhaps and I know the boys in blue have growled at me before about this in regards to training, cost, time etc but perhaps around the Stanflex module's. Follow on class should be larger then OPV80/90, and if done as such would be fine for its peace time constabulary role but if SHTF becomes an adequate escort to support vessel's transiting back and forth to our forward based MFU's, to local marine traffic etc

 

[Maranoa]

I'm now totally in agreement with those speculating that the new Australian 'defence policy' is nothing more than political noise, all smoke and mirrors, no real meaningful 'deterrence' .

 

[Volkodav]

Ok I think we need to step back, take a deep breath, and look at things more holistically.

The ANZAC replacement was first mentioned officially by government in about 2010. Everyone's favourite Smith was Defmin, was in discussions with his UK counterpart, and six Type 26 were mentioned as a possible replacement.

That was 13 years and six Prime Minister's ago.

AWD was kicked off shortly after Timor, selection wasn't made until 07, steel wasn't cut until 2010. That was even though there were parallel activities where yard construction and workforce development started before the design was selected.

Basically the Hunters are the replacements for the ANZACs, nothing else, no matter how well intentioned can now be procured instead.

Lead times dictate about six Hunters will be well underway before another design could possibly be ready to start build.

We are stuck with hunters and arafuras for the next several years, i.e. we will likely have to order a second batch of hunters before the design of a DDG could possibly be baselined.

Now is precisely when we should be determining what comes next, defining capability, requirements, selecting and baseline a design.

 

[hauritz]

To put everything in perspective. Even if the ANZACs were to serve for 35 years the last of them would leave service in 2041. If we delivered a new Hunter or its equivalent every two years from 2031 we would only have six ships to replace the ANZACs by 2041 effectively seeing the number of surface combatants drop to 9 vessels. Even if we increase the drumbeat to one new ship a year from 2031 we would see the size of the fleet increase to maybe 12 or 13 vessels by 2040.

Of course there will be those that would argue that the ANZAC class would probably not really be a viable warship going into the 2030s let alone continuing to serve through to the 2040s.

There is no guarantee in my mind that we will even see SSNs in service by the 2030s. That will depend on the whims of the US congress.

We have gotten ourselves into a real mess with the navy.

 

[Volkodav]

To put everything in perspective. Even if the ANZACs were to serve for 35 years the last of them would leave service in 2041. If we delivered a new Hunter or its equivalent every two years from 2031 we would only have six ships to replace the ANZACs by 2041 effectively seeing the number of surface combatants drop to 9 vessels. Even if we increase the drumbeat to one new ship a year from 2031 we would see the size of the fleet increase to maybe 12 or 13 vessels by 2040.

Of course there will be those that would argue that the ANZAC class would probably not really be a viable warship going into the 2030s let alone continuing to serve through to the 2040s.

There is no guarantee in my mind that we will even see SSNs in service by the 2030s. That will depend on the whims of the US congress.

We have gotten ourselves into a real mess with the navy.

This, I believe, is where the Corvettes (or hopefully light frigates) fit in.

Concurrent acquisition of a minimum (upgraded ANZAC equivalent) capability, to ensure numbers do not drop below current levels.

They won't be anywhere near as good as Hunter, but hopefully would be more capable and survivable than an ANZAC. They would definately be better than an OPV or PB.

Fingers crossed, planning is underway for a similar process to what is proposed for submarines. Life extension, capability improvements, interim capabilities then a long term solution.

Arafuras used to upskill Civmec, block work for the corvette/light frigate, shared between major yards to cover off any capacity/skills/experience short falls. Whole of industry support to get them out of Civmec in a timely fashion.

Plan, not just for destroyers to follow Hunter, but for corvettes/light frigates to replace Arafuras, which will be cascaded to other roles.

Amphibious support anyone? Sweden Procures Eight Artillery Vessels From Swede Ship Marine

 

[Morgo]

I'm now totally in agreement with those speculating that the new Australian 'defence policy' is nothing more than political noise, all smoke and mirrors, no real meaningful 'deterrence' .

I don’t understand this line of thinking.

IF the leaks are correct, then all the noise about these being a smokescreen for cuts was way off the mark. The net result seems likely to be a rebalance of 3 hulls from Hunters to DDGs (seems sensible) plus an entirely new class of 6 vessels which are likely to be at least as capable as the ANZACs currently are, (ie if we go ALFA 3000) and possibly a substantial upgrade (ie if we go for Type 31 or Constellation). Zero cuts.

Yes this will take time to implement but what were you expecting? A carrier group by Christmas? The lead times on changes to fleet structure are measured in decades and there’s not much to be done in the meantime.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don’t understand this line of thinking.

IF the leaks are correct, then all the noise about these being a smokescreen for cuts was way off the mark. The net result seems likely to be a rebalance of 3 hulls from Hunters to DDGs (seems sensible) plus an entirely new class of 6 vessels which are likely to be at least as capable as the ANZACs currently are, (ie if we go ALFA 3000) and possibly a substantial upgrade (ie if we go for Type 31 or Constellation). Zero cuts.

Yes this will take time to implement but what were you expecting? A carrier group by Christmas? The lead times on changes to fleet structure are measured in decades and there’s not much to be done in the meantime.

One needs to keep in mind the entirety of the DSR and the outcomes. A number of Army vehicle programmes have been significantly scaled back as well as leaks of changes either suggested or made to the Hunter-class build, which would impact national ship building. If (BIG IF) a new destroyer programme is started with building to commence immediately following the end of a shortened Hunter-class build, then from a numbers perspective it would be a wash with the currently planned number of Hunter-class vessels. However, if there were to be any delays in getting a future destroyer programme going, or gov't takes too long in determining what it wants/needs, etc. then there could easily be a gap in building between the end of SEA 5000 and the start of building for SEA NNN.

Now perhaps I missed it, but it still seems as though there is a lack of direction (at least in public) as to what would be considered a Tier 1 or Tier 2 vessel, or even what size and capabilities would be considered for the additional, smaller combatants. So far, many seem to consider these potential vessels to be corvettes, but at the same time suggesting vessels that are actually more the size of frigates or in some cases definitely frigates and not corvettes. I do not care how anyone might try and twist or change things, but a USN Constellation-class vessel is a frigate, not a corvette.

Such distinctions can be quite important, because yards that are perfectly capable of building a 90m patrol vessel which is under 2,000 tons and does not require the same level of redundancies for survivability and DC, as well as the installation and integration of a complex weapons, sensor and CMS fitout, might find it a it challenging to build a 120+ m vessel displacing 4,000+ tons with a weapons, sensor and CMS fitout to match.

Two other things to keep in mind is that reported urgency of Australian needs, when considering how long it would take for some of these potential systems to actually first enter service. The second being what Australia has been purchasing in terms of defence kit, where that money is coming from and what is not being acquired because of the purchase. The RGM-109E Tomahawk purchase is an unfortunately good example of this, with AUD$1.3 bil. being spent to acquire over 200 Tomahawk missiles, when there will only be three platforms in the ADF able to launch these missiles, and those platforms are going to probably have better or more important things to be doing.

 

[Todjaeger]

For the targets Australia would be hitting, it would be fine for the initial strike. This is push button organic strike capability, for our region. Within hours, air force would be using P8's, F-35's and SH to drop tonnage. LRASM, JASSM, harpoon, JDAM. We have more capable strike if we need it. But they aren't 365/24/7 and delivery in less than an hour, and able to launch instantly from a platform already at sea.

But Australia has more tomahawk capability than the whole of NATO minus the USA. Nearly as much cruise missile capability as France or the UK. Looking around our region, drawing 1500 km radius around Australia. Its not nothing. It is about deterring, fleets, makeshift bases and beachhead, not a hardened airfield. A few H6's sitting on tarmac, a destroyer and a couple of frigates. Currently there are no real targets within 2000 km of the Australian EEZ. Lets keep it that way.

Let us just say then that I have a rather different perspective on how effective Tomahawk LACM's would be, if Australia attempted to use them as some seem to be suggesting.

One needs to remember that if a target is worth Australia taking warshots at, then said target is also likely worth being defended by whoever Australia would be shooting at. This means that enough ordnance would need to arrive on target, through whatever potential and likely defences might be trying to intercept the inbound LACM. This is also assuming that Australia can get the targeting data it would need in order to make attempting the strike worthwhile.

At this point, I remain skeptical that even a strike package of 24 Tomahawks would be worthwhile.

 

[76mmGuns]

Interesting discussion. Personally I don't think its a bad thing having hundreds of missiles in our inventory, given how slowly they seem to be manufactured. I mean, even the USN only ordered about 12 or 18 NSM's for 2023, I think, if I remember the report from UNSI site correctly. Even though we lack the VLS, at least it's better than waiting until 2030's when the first Hunters get commissioned and start ordering missiles then. It's not ideal, but given how quick it is to run out of missiles, more we have earlier, the better, even given obsolescence.