Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Scott Elaurant]

Gowind for Egypt and Sigma for Morocco are two quick comparator classes. I was going off the time from order to commissioning.
My guess is that Luerssen and other concerns will have done detailed design work (I have no way of knowing)

As Volkodav and others have pointed out, the time to get a major shipbuilding project going can be measured in years, and that applies to tendering, contract signature, detailed design and ordering, all of which occur before construction starts.

In the case of the Gowind corvettes for Egypt, in terms of construction time they do seem attractive, taking 29 months (2015-2017) to build the first one, El Fatah. It was designed and built by Naval Group in France, so there was no issue in having to modify the design to suit local construction standards or component suppliers. The time from contract signing to construction start was another year (2014-2015). However the critical factor was that this “off the shelf” design had been in development by Naval Group since 2006(!) or another 8 years. So with plenty of time in advance to develop the concept and detailed designs in this case, Naval Group were ready to go with the design of an export version when an order was received. Plus all the weapons and systems used were French, so there were no issues with getting international approvals. And this was for a 1300 tonne ship.

DCNS presented an export version of its FREMM Frigate and its Gowind r

DCNS presented an export version of its FREMM Frigate and its Gowind range at Euronaval

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[Scott Elaurant]

I note someone recently referred to a saying in engineering about time, cost and quality.

I believe the quote in engineering project management is:

“Time, Cost, Quality. Pick any two.”

 

[Todjaeger]

Something else to think about if one were to consider small warships for use by the RAN is the areas of strategic concern for Australia.

So far it does seem as though people only considering the seas immediately around Australia and perhaps stretching out to the islands of New Guinea, Timor, Sumba, Bali and Java. From my POV there is a problem with only looking out that far, as it ignores where chokepoints are in major SLOC that Australia among many others rely upon.

It does Australia little good to have many smaller warships dominating the waters of the eastern Indian Ocean between Java and Perth, and the Timor and Arafura Seas if passage through the Malacca Strait becomes disrupted because of conflict. This is one of the areas where smaller advanced warships are not really all that good an option. Whilst they are usually less expensive than larger vessels with comparable (or potentially even better) systems, the cost difference is often not as significant as the difference in range, endurance and seakeeping.

 

[Armchair]

I note someone recently referred to a saying in engineering about time, cost and quality.

I believe the quote in engineering project management is:

“Time, Cost, Quality. Pick any two.”

I am not sure any major RAN projects in my lifetime have made it to one let alone two of these three (again I don’t believe the problem is shipbuilding as much as decision making).

I guess I am also implying that quality is multidimensional, or that capability is a fourth dimension. The capability of an incomplete vessel (of any quality or cost), or a vessel that is known to be unable to deploy, at the time it is required, is zero. That is obvious to me (a random internet poster) and to any potential adversary.

The quality of a quickly completed vessel is likely to be lower but its capability might be greater than zero and be a closely guarded secret.

It is a bit like the whole Tomahawk Hobart debate. Yes it would be sensible for a Hobart to only carry a small number of land attack missiles (like 8) but it COULD carry, say, 40 and potential adversaries have to plan for that.

 

[Armchair]

Something else to think about if one were to consider small warships for use by the RAN is the areas of strategic concern for Australia.

So far it does seem as though people only considering the seas immediately around Australia and perhaps stretching out to the islands of New Guinea, Timor, Sumba, Bali and Java. From my POV there is a problem with only looking out that far, as it ignores where chokepoints are in major SLOC that Australia among many others rely upon.

It does Australia little good to have many smaller warships dominating the waters of the eastern Indian Ocean between Java and Perth, and the Timor and Arafura Seas if passage through the Malacca Strait becomes disrupted because of conflict. This is one of the areas where smaller advanced warships are not really all that good an option. Whilst they are usually less expensive than larger vessels with comparable (or potentially even better) systems, the cost difference is often not as significant as the difference in range, endurance and seakeeping.

I am just going off the public bits of the DSR and the current army reorg. The army basing leads me to believe they are most interested in islands to the east of PNG (with limited interest in the Indonesian archipelago (the improvement in relations with Indonesia since 1999 is remakable). I am guessing that establishing “limited sea control” basically means the Timor Arafura Coral Bismarck and Solomons Sea (not all at the same time). If smaller warships dominate the eastern Indian ocean it would only be because nobody else was there.

I don’t think Australia will have spare adequately protected surface vessels* that are going to be much help in conflict in the Malacca Strait for quite a few years. Submarines (in the broad area), SF, expeditionary air, missile batteries protected by light infantry provide options to government that any friendly force would be pretty happy to have on their side.

Edit. *Not quite true — Australia will have long range strike capacity from Hobart class

 

[Bob53]

Greg Sheridan having a crack at Marles in the Australian today.

interesting quote here….

Marles told parliament once more that Australia confronted “the biggest challenge in strategic circumstances... since the end of the Second World War”. He revealed, shockingly, that our surface fleet – the three Air Warfare Destroyers and eight Anzac frigates – “is now the oldest fleet that the Navy has ever operated”. The number of available days from the surface fleet was 3915 in the last year of the Gillard government, but had now fallen to 2749.

Why Richard Marles is one of the worst defence ministers in a decade — The Australian

Is there a hard head on any side of the Pacific who thinks the Albanese government has shown the capability to build nuclear submarines, or that the Americans would give any of their subs to such incompetence?

apple.news

 

[Bob53]

The Virginia's come with a complete support package and network, that we will be required to join. Anything that is not FMS or in service with the US military does not have this.

Perfect example, the C27J was selected for the RAAF under FMS, the USAF took control of the capability and then killed it. Australia was left with a difficult to support orphan that has never met expectations or requirements.

Just imagine where we would be had we followed Johnston's (ex defmin) desire to acquire fast frigates. All BS aside, he wanted LCS 2 aluminium trimerans from Austal. Just imagine us having them as the USN stopped development of the mission modules and started divesting the capability?

When the C27 K are an orphan fleet…how bad is that for us? Are the airframes not in use in any civilian capacity? Are the rolls Royce engines only used on these aircraft and no other fleets so no supporting civilian capabilities?I thought they were the same donk as a herc. My understanding is the US military divested them but they are still in use by the US Coast Guard and around a dozen other militaries. So why is it so difficult to support?

 

[Bob53]

I am just going off the public bits of the DSR and the current army reorg. The army basing leads me to believe they are most interested in islands to the east of PNG (with limited interest in the Indonesian archipelago (the improvement in relations with Indonesia since 1999 is remakable). I am guessing that establishing “limited sea control” basically means the Timor Arafura Coral Bismarck and Solomons Sea (not all at the same time). If smaller warships dominate the eastern Indian ocean it would only be because nobody else was there.

I don’t think Australia will have spare adequately protected surface vessels* that are going to be much help in conflict in the Malacca Strait for quite a few years. Submarines (in the broad area), SF, expeditionary air, missile batteries protected by light infantry provide options to government that any friendly force would be pretty happy to have on their side.

Edit. *Not quite true — Australia will have long range strike capacity from Hobart class

Would any country other than Indonesia have underwater sonar systems in the deep water choke points? Seems if they have decent tracking systems then there would be a pretty good idea of what is transiting, direction and when to then pick up tracking at the exit point.

 

[Armchair]

Would any country other than Indonesia have underwater sonar systems in the deep water choke points? Seems if they have decent tracking systems then there would be a pretty good idea of what is transiting, direction and when to then pick up tracking at the exit point.

I am sure that is a closely guarded secret - not the sort of thing you could just find in a spare bathroom or have whispered to you in a Florida resort!

This is obviously no substitute for an informed answer but

I just said “broad area” to avoid people making the assumption that I was advocating RAN submarine transits of the strait during a crisis.

 

[H_K]

Disagree.

You maybe could get the platform but it would be to someone else's spec. You definately wouldn't get the support system. Training, maintenance documentation, tools, equipment, spares.

Then there are the big things, such as adjusting the build strategy to a different environment. That is always an issue if you build in a yard which hasn’t built the design before- you have to turn the design into work orders appropriate for that yard and workforce so that it all gets created; each environment is unique. That can take, and has taken, years.

Not really, since that might get one a platform, but Australia being able to operate, support and sustain that platform would be an enormous and enormously expensive and time consuming issue.

Purchasing a warship designed and built to another end-user's specifications really is not a change in acquisition paradigm, rather it is desperate invitation to waste time and resources, since any piece of kit not already in RAN service is one that RAN personnel would need to become familiar with both operating, as well as maintaining and repair. In addition, an ongoing supply chain would need to be established

This is what I meant by a change of paradigm.

Most people on this board can’t picture a quick build and delivery. Including experienced professionals. Their objections are reasonable given the parameters they operate in.

Yet other navies operating under a different paradigm do regularly get ships delivered within 4 years of contract signing. Interestingly, the one thing they typically have in common is a sense of urgency and a neighboring threat - Greece, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines etc.

The leading export yards and equipment suppliers are geared to meet such needs. All the above problems somehow get sorted out - support, spares, configuration changes, training, local production for later hulls etc. Maybe not to the standards the RAN is used to today, but like I said this is a different paradigm, which prioritizes speed and off-the-shelf solutions. For example, the customers agree to limit themselves to widely exported MOTS equipment with proven supply chains (MTU or MAN for diesels, NSM/Exocet for SSMs, ESSM/Mica/CAAM for SAMs, Tacticos/9LV for CMS, etc)… the RAN wouldn’t like every item on the menu, but it would probably be able to select a good amount of equipment and vendors that it is already familiar with.

But hey given the luxury of time, big budgets, and a conviction that “my requirements really are different from everyone else’s”, sure let’s have at it and customize. Working swell for the Hunters. Just need a couple of billions more and no war before 2035! (Ok I’m exaggerating for effect - my point isn’t that one paradigm is better than the other, only that *if* speed was the #1 driver, then other approaches are possible, with their own set of pros & cons).

 

[Morgo]

Marles told parliament once more that Australia confronted “the biggest challenge in strategic circumstances... since the end of the Second World War”. He revealed, shockingly, that our surface fleet – the three Air Warfare Destroyers and eight Anzac frigates – “is now the oldest fleet that the Navy has ever operated”. The number of available days from the surface fleet was 3915 in the last year of the Gillard government, but had now fallen to 2749.

Sheridan is a hack. Where do I start?

Shouldn't he, just maybe, be turning his ire on what happened (or didn't happen) between the last year of the Gillard Government and the first year of the Albanese Government?

Why is the availability of the surface fleet Marles' fault? Or does he think that Marles can pop to Bunnings this arvo and pick up a few DDGs, and just hasn't been bothered to do so so far?

Why is he so fixated on announcing a site for an east coast sub base that won't be needed for a decade?

Why is saving $670 million a bad thing?

Why is Marles "one of the worst defence ministers in a decade" because "[he] hasn't sorted out the mess in defence," a mess Marles has inherited from, you know, the other Defence ministers over the past decade?

Also it's "tenets," Greg, not "tenants."

Idiot.

Edit: Just to clarify none of that is directed at you @Bob53 ! Garbage journalism just gets me riled up...

 

[Morgo]

Duplicate post mods, please delete.

 

[Aardvark144]

Sheridan is a hack. Where do I start?

Shouldn't he, just maybe, be turning his ire on what happened (or didn't happen) between the last year of the Gillard Government and the first year of the Albanese Government?

Why is the availability of the surface fleet Marles' fault? Or does he think that Marles can pop to Bunnings this arvo and pick up a few DDGs, and just hasn't been bothered to do so so far?

Why is he so fixated on announcing a site for an east coast sub base that won't be needed for a decade?

Why is saving $670 million a bad thing?

Why is Marles "one of the worst defence ministers in a decade" because "[he] hasn't sorted out the mess in defence," a mess Marles has inherited from, you know, the other Defence ministers over the past decade?

Also it's "tenets," Greg, not "tenants."

Idiot.

Edit: Just to clarify none of that is directed at you @Bob53 ! Garbage journalism just gets me riled up...

I am certainly not a supporter of Sheridan; however, in the article he did reference the lack of inertia from the previous Government. He did not blame the current Navy surface fleet issues on Marles - the fault lies with both sides of politics. In the leadup to and following the election all we here from Marles and Co is the dire geopolitical situation we are in and we need action now, yet there is no real increase in Defence expenditure until after FWD estimates, essentially amounting to a political promises and we all now what political promises are. AUKUS seems to be the current Government's get out of jail card each time they cop hard questions on Defence. The Government approaches it's second year of Office and what new capability has been achieved? What has been signed off are essentially projects commenced by the previous Government.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The detailed design for the Bulgarian MMPV90 certainly has been completed given that they are already well underway in terms of construction. There would still need to be detailed design work before ships could be built for Australia since Australia would not be using exactly the same systems as the Bulgarian vessels.

Also, the detailed design work would need to account for changes in a number of areas which many likely overlook because they just are not 'sexy' like weapons and sensor systems. This covers ship systems like the fire suppression system, electrical generation and distribution, ship environmental controls (heating, cooling and air circulation, etc.) water and sewage piping, and so on.

Inevitably. There almost never is a proven existing design with all the work done on a large vessel.
But presumably lurrsen would have a pretty good idea of existing suppliers and some components are fitting common specs.

But even the spec/contracting etc could take a year or more. Even just going from a 80m ship to a 90m ship.

Which is why we are kind of stuck with either Lurrsen or BAE for builds. We have placed them in position of great authority and control over local industry.

Gowind for Egypt and Sigma for Morocco are two quick comparator classes. I was going off the time from order to commissioning.
My guess is that Luerssen and other concerns will have done detailed design work (I have no way of knowing).

I would be wary of overseas build comparisons. France and Egypt are only 3000km away from each other. If France specs something the Egyptians just live with it. Everything is covered under their 7 year agreement in which Naval group runs everything.

Egypt, France’s Naval Group reach five-year maintenance agreement

The agreement covers five years of maintenance for seven ships in the Egyptian navy.

www.defensenews.com

I'm not sure such an arrangement would work for a modern free democracy like Australia. The French also don't have a huge footprint here. Our laws and codes are very different. In Egypt which basically has no local ship building industry other than the one Naval group built for them, to contest. Christ, Naval group won't ever want to talk to Australia again after what happened previously. Its a benchmark to look at, but realistically its never going to happen.

With so many agreements, you really aren't getting a fair sail away price or schedule. Anyone who has worked in the ME can tell you how state run contracts are won and lost and that advertised prices aren't accounted in the same way as in western nations.

A similar situation can exist with getting the Saab 9LV CMS, and potentially for the exact same reasons.

I don't think the 9LV would be the problem. Consoles and COTS computers are easy to acquire. With the combat system its the integration of every sensor and weapon. Think of it like a big network of computers, and you need software drivers for any of it to work. Yeh sure you can buy a 40mm gun, but unless you spend ~ 5 years developing the software for it to work on 9LV, you won't be able to integrate it to your combat software. In other words, you won't have the software to fire it. As the F-35 is showing, the software is often harder, more expensive and more time consuming than the hardware.

Basically this allows for only a limited amount of configuration - eg. you may get your choice of NSM/Exocet, ESSM/Mica/CAAM, 57/76mm gun, 9LV/Tacticos CMS, Thales/Saab radars etc. The menu of options would still be good enough to satisfy most small navies, but would not allow for extensive customization - this likely won’t work for the RAN.

9LV is Australia's combat system, and we have some sovereignty over that, we can write the software here locally and know it can work and be updated or customize it even with US spec and five eyes tech. Going to anyone elses combat system, we lose that entirely and are at their mercy. 9LV is also a good product used by other medium navies. All the sensors etc need to be spec to talk on that network, so having 9LV already spec'ed on a platform is a huge win. There are probably 100 different items that sit on that network, that all have their own weight, power, cooling, deck space, cabin space/volume requirements. You need training, logistics, support for each of those components. It takes decades, of mostly ex-ADF people. You need an army of people to support the fleet of equipment.

So its not about choice. Its about mission spec, and what is integrated. Specing, contracting and acquiring all this stuff is about equal to the cost of the physical ship.

MTU is the engine designer, sometimes they can be the supplier, but really all the support comes from Penske in Australia. There is a complex network of relationships to support all this stuff. Penske can support the engine rebuilds, but you need to find someone else to take it into and off the ship. Penske looks after the block, but some accessories, digital control etc goes elsewhere. MTU is widely used in the station generation for regional towns, mines, mine machinery, industry generation etc, so everything sort of becomes an extension of the local economy and what is used there and what isn't. It gets very hard when you choose something very unique like the diesels in the Collins sub. No body wants to touch them, and the original supplier went bankrupt.

Places like Japan, Korea, US, Italy can get some impressive prices, because they have huge industries that give lots of competition and big build programs that give huge volumes.

So it becomes a very short list of small ships, fitted with 9LV, with a builder with a significant footprint in Australia.

I asked someone about another platform from Navantia overseas build and they picked up a rock and threw it at me. I do hear that the parts logistics software thing that Navantia uses for the LHD and AWD and the AORs, does work. Currently Navantia isn't building ships in Australia. There are build issues in the papers right now, and the AWD experience as Volk has explained was lots of fun. We could spent 5+ years really sorting out the issues from overseas builds, issues that wouldn't have happened with local oversight and local people familiar with local builds. Navantia isn't evil, these are just the issue when you select a new builder with a very different culture/industry/spec/codes/ etc. With something like Naval group, you are going to have even bigger issues, which we had during the sub build. French push French industry. Particularly if you want something different. Box flogging.

At least with BAE, Navantia and perhaps NVL, they have a range of products. We aren't just picking random objects, each from a different supplier, each requiring a separate and effectively unviable/unsustainable network.

 

[Todjaeger]

This is what I meant by a change of paradigm.

Most people on this board can’t picture a quick build and delivery. Including experienced professionals. Their objections are reasonable given the parameters they operate in.

Yet other navies operating under a different paradigm do regularly get ships delivered within 4 years of contract signing. Interestingly, the one thing they typically have in common is a sense of urgency and a neighboring threat - Greece, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines etc.

The leading export yards and equipment suppliers are geared to meet such needs. All the above problems somehow get sorted out - support, spares, configuration changes, training, local production for later hulls etc. Maybe not to the standards the RAN is used to today, but like I said this is a different paradigm, which prioritizes speed and off-the-shelf solutions. For example, the customers agree to limit themselves to widely exported MOTS equipment with proven supply chains (MTU or MAN for diesels, NSM/Exocet for SSMs, ESSM/Mica/CAAM for SAMs, Tacticos/9LV for CMS, etc)… the RAN wouldn’t like every item on the menu, but it would probably be able to select a good amount of equipment and vendors that it is already familiar with.

But hey given the luxury of time, big budgets, and a conviction that “my requirements really are different from everyone else’s”, sure let’s have at it and customize. Working swell for the Hunters. Just need a couple of billions more and no war before 2035! (Ok I’m exaggerating for effect - my point isn’t that one paradigm is better than the other, only that *if* speed was the #1 driver, then other approaches are possible, with their own set of pros & cons).

IMO there are some significant issues with trying to apply what other nations have done, to what Australia could and/or should do. Similarly there are problems with conflating the time between contract signing and first delivery, vs. programme start and first delivery.

Some of this has to do with Australia's location, and where likely threats would be operating, as well as who/what those threats would be. Of the examples given, two of them operate in the Med with likely threats also located nearby in the Med, one in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and perhaps Arabian Sea as well, whilst the third has likely threats in the SCS. By coincidence, the SCS is an area where the RAN could potentially encounter the same threats, but ADF bases to support a RAN vessel are significantly further away. One also needs to recognize in the event a shooting war were to break out between some of the listed nations and their respective threats some of the recently ordered vessels would like be lost if targeted, but might survive simply because the threat found other potential targets which were more worthwhile to strike.

From an Australian perspective, Indonesia, Timor Leste, PNG and the Solomons are not really security threats to Australia, and these are nations which are in comparable distances. Rather, Australia might find itself in a situation where the ADF needs to deploy to assist these or other nations to repel or resist threats from nations more distant from Australia. To provide some perspective on the scale, the sailing distance from the Greek island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea to the Turkish port of Mersin on the Med near Cyprus and Syria is about 1,700 km and the two coastal locations are about as far apart as possible for these two nations and still be reasonable to navigate in the event of hostilities. Compare this with the sailing distance between FBE and FBW using what I believe is the shortest possible route, heading south from Sydney to cross the Bass Strait and then the Great Australian Bight before rounding SW WA and heading north to Perth, this distance is over 4,000 km, and this is to go from the RAN's major east coast base to the major west coast one.

Such distances make a difference in terms of what capabilities are needed for a warship. This is not just about having the range and endurance to make such a distant deployment possible, but also to be able to operate, survive and have an impact at such distances. Not to cause anyone to have any sort of pissing match, but if direct armed conflict were to break out between Greece and Turkey, ignoring the impact that NATO membership would have, both nations would be operating in a conflict zone that would be covered by both their naval and air forces. Yes, their naval vessels would be under increased threat of maritime strikes launched by hostile air, but they would also have the benefit of both friendly air cover as well as increased SA due to overhead MPA or MPS aircraft. Australia cannot assume that it will have such luxury due to the potential distances from Australian bases.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't think the 9LV would be the problem. Consoles and COTS computers are easy to acquire. With the combat system its the integration of every sensor and weapon. Think of it like a big network of computers, and you need software drivers for any of it to work. Yeh sure you can buy a 40mm gun, but unless you spend ~ 5 years developing the software for it to work on 9LV, you won't be able to integrate it to your combat software. In other words, you won't have the software to fire it. As the F-35 is showing, the software is often harder, more expensive and more time consuming than the hardware.

Maybe yes and maybe no. The consoles and monitors in this image do not really look like something readily available in most electronics distributors (at least here in the US, Oz might be different. There is also no real mention of what would presumably be server rooms with associated racks, backup systems and power as well as cooling. I could be mistaken, but I rather doubt that one could just go to a distributor to order a bunch of Cisco B480 M5's and use those to build a computer cluster running the CMS

When considering the consoles and processors used by the Aegis CMS, it takes a couple of years for these to be built, then get linked to radar systems to be tested before getting delivered for installation aboard ship. I would imagine that something at least somewhat similar would occur with 9LV. If not, then there would be the real risk of computer hardware fault or failure causing the CMS to shut down or perhaps even worse, display bad data.

 

[Armchair]

IMO there are some significant issues with trying to apply what other nations have done, to what Australia could and/or should do. Similarly there are problems with conflating the time between contract signing and first delivery, vs. programme start and first delivery.

Some of this has to do with Australia's location, and where likely threats would be operating, as well as who/what those threats would be. Of the examples given, two of them operate in the Med with likely threats also located nearby in the Med, one in the Persian Gulf, Red Sea and perhaps Arabian Sea as well, whilst the third has likely threats in the SCS. By coincidence, the SCS is an area where the RAN could potentially encounter the same threats, but ADF bases to support a RAN vessel are significantly further away. One also needs to recognize in the event a shooting war were to break out between some of the listed nations and their respective threats some of the recently ordered vessels would like be lost if targeted, but might survive simply because the threat found other potential targets which were more worthwhile to strike.

From an Australian perspective, Indonesia, Timor Leste, PNG and the Solomons are not really security threats to Australia, and these are nations which are in comparable distances. Rather, Australia might find itself in a situation where the ADF needs to deploy to assist these or other nations to repel or resist threats from nations more distant from Australia. To provide some perspective on the scale, the sailing distance from the Greek island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea to the Turkish port of Mersin on the Med near Cyprus and Syria is about 1,700 km and the two coastal locations are about as far apart as possible for these two nations and still be reasonable to navigate in the event of hostilities. Compare this with the sailing distance between FBE and FBW using what I believe is the shortest possible route, heading south from Sydney to cross the Bass Strait and then the Great Australian Bight before rounding SW WA and heading north to Perth, this distance is over 4,000 km, and this is to go from the RAN's major east coast base to the major west coast one.

Such distances make a difference in terms of what capabilities are needed for a warship. This is not just about having the range and endurance to make such a distant deployment possible, but also to be able to operate, survive and have an impact at such distances. Not to cause anyone to have any sort of pissing match, but if direct armed conflict were to break out between Greece and Turkey, ignoring the impact that NATO membership would have, both nations would be operating in a conflict zone that would be covered by both their naval and air forces. Yes, their naval vessels would be under increased threat of maritime strikes launched by hostile air, but they would also have the benefit of both friendly air cover as well as increased SA due to overhead MPA or MPS aircraft. Australia cannot assume that it will have such luxury due to the potential distances from Australian bases.

Perhaps there are secret parts of the DSR which say “Australia needs to project power/ establish limited sea control by sending surface vessels to the South China Sea” but if it does (freedom of navigation patrols are not sea control) and the government intends to try to do that then It would require (multiple) assets that are forbidden for discussion in this forum so I can’t really address it further. Suffice to say you’re gonna need a bigger boat.

The DSR does talk about projecting power in the northern approaches to deter aggression. I fully agree that none of the nations close to Australia are a security threat to Australia now.

imagine though that during a civil disturbance the government (or a rebel movement) of some nation not terribly far from Australia invited a security partner (a potential adversary of Australia) to restore peace? What (long range) land-based assets would that security partner deploy to protect its peacekeepers and the associated naval assets? How long would those peacekeepers (and their protecting assets) remain after peace was restored?

I don’t think my scenario is likely to occur but force design and ship building needs to help make such a scenario close to impossible.

I am thinking you’re gonna need more boats, sooner.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Maybe yes and maybe no. The consoles and monitors in this image do not really look like something readily available in most electronics distributors (at least here in the US, Oz might be different. There is also no real mention of what would presumably be server rooms with associated racks, backup systems and power as well as cooling. I could be mistaken, but I rather doubt that one could just go to a distributor to order a bunch of Cisco B480 M5's and use those to build a computer cluster running the CMS

They are usually a metal box and they integrate COTS or MOTS parts. SAAB doesn't build the consoles themselves, but outsources that to companies like SAGE. They have a video.

Seamless collaboration delivers specialist training consoles for the Australian Navy

SAGE Automation manufactured more than 50 specialist training consoles in collaboration with Saab Australia. Working to a tight timeframe, SAGE relied on its scalable manufacturing workforce in Tonsley to complete the project ahead of schedule. The training consoles will be used by the Royal...

www.sageautomation.com

Yes, it takes time. But its doable. The consoles are made to standard design that fits most bridges. If you have to have something custom, well costs and time go up. But yes, most of this stuff is ordered from Dell, Cisco, IBM, etc. It used to be custom logic and circuits with custom silicon. But COTS PC's can do this stuff these days just fine. That being said, even COTS can have a 4-6 month lead, then you need to fit them into a console, and fit the console into the ship etc.

What I am saying is that as fun as it is to just pick options like its a candy store, reality is certain weapons aren't integrated then there is a huge cost (time money and resources) to do so. While volume and weight power and cooling may be reserved for a system, if a new model comes out or isn't available any more then that requires engineering changes and compromises to happen. Or if the client specs a higher power system, like the RAN would likely spec a high end mech serv airconditioning, then you end up eating into other power space cooling, this can cause a run away design problem as if there is nothign to steal from you need to start making the ship bigger.

We already have a super big high performance ship. Its the Hunter class. Its a space ship. But as a high end ship, spending more to make it better makes sense. There is no bigger western frigate ship than Australia's Hunter (probably). We will pay (time money people space power) for integration of things like CEA radars on that platform.

The OPV's is meant to be cheap and cheerful. OTS. Mass produced. Low cost. Off the rack ready to go. Commercial performance (in a good way, like reliable and easy to work on). Spending loads of money on upgunning and customizing an OPV beyond its capabilities makes no sense. You select a more capable design to begin with. Or you put all that shit onto the more capable platform.

The MMPV90 has:

• 9LV
• Giraffe radar
• 76mm
• space and weight for VLS (not Mk41 but space and weight are there in the original design for up to 16 mk41)
• anti-ship missiles (RBS, but NSM is nice and compact and allowed in the original design).
• Hangar

We don't have a 35mm gun, and acquiring it for a OPV may be a waste. I imagine it is a trade off in top weight somewhere for 16 VLS. Anzacs get around ok without a CIWS, and ESSM Blk II Is a very, very capable missile. You have a 76mm. So now splitting hairs between ESSM and a 76mm and maybe some .50cal or a 25mm mount. On a OPV more .50's or a mini typhoon would be way more useful and appropriate.

The OPV80 would have spec, all (98%) the things that the RAN other wise needs on a ship of that size. air conditioning, generation, toilets, cabins, power points, electrical distribution junction boxes, lighting etc. With suppliers and people experience fitting and supporting that in that type of vessel. So merging the two and making a MMPV90 for the RAN should be a fairly quick, straight forward process. As you are extending an existing arrangement, prices and quotes should be very competitive and very low risk.

Now I am not saying we should buy and build MMPV90s. But it isn't the dumbest idea.

The dumbest idea is trying to retrofit all those weapons on to the existing OPV80 Arafuras, which are already built. That is without a doubt mega stupid. The ship was not built for it. Shrinking a 90m design to 80m NVL had to loose all those weapon capability space/weight/volume/power etc. ASPI can sit it up its own bum. Even the builder will say that is a fools errand. They would probably walk away from the deal if you tried to force them to do it.

The next dumbest idea is to select a new similar ship and builder. You waste a billion and 5 years, even if you rig the selection tender and use someone who already has some sort of foot print. Military ships are tools. They are all form. There is no magic going on here, and ships, out of all platforms, have less magic than land vehicles or airplanes. They are designed more like buildings than like airplanes or cars. Think of them like a hotel building with weapons that float.

The next dumbest idea is trying to build a German corvette K130. An older design (pre 2000?), for an older yard, for a Navy with different needs, with basically no RAN weapons or systems. NVL would probably not bid on this project. Yes it was updated for Sa'ar, but that is a highly modified platform for the Israelis. Again no commonality with the RAN or the OPV80.

A MMPV90 is probably 2,500t and cost wise is effectively a hot line, of a ship we are already building 12 of. Tearing that up to build 3-6 of something else similar is a complete waste of time. Benchmark them, but know that it won't be built. As mentioned you have to work out how the yard is going to build the ship, and the ship yard needs to tool up for that design, and as a new prime you need a new supplier network and then new contracts need to be negotiated more tenders happen for components and logistics etc etc etc.

I get the attraction to things in the 5,000t range like the arrow 140. If we were right at the start, we could have looked harder at something like that with maybe a 100m OPV and a 140m frigate.

But we went there and said no. The FFG's were in that range, and the DDG's are really a 6,000t ship with growth "margin". You are no longer building a cheap and cheerful ship off a production line, and if we went with that size, build order would be down to 3-4 max. You are starting from scratch, new prime, new everything. We haven't build a ship in that size for a long time and the DDG's had notoriously old equipment fitted that had been in storage for 10+ years. For example the Yard at Henderson, isn't good at 5000t+ ships. The painting can handle whole OPV sized ships like an automotive spray booth, but can't handle whole frigates, only sections. Think about maintenance painting etc, costs go through the roof. Maybe 10 times the cost. 140m is a lot bigger than 80m and think about birthing etc. Another billion.. The build hall is configured to handle lots of 80-90m ships. Im not even sure if we can handle efficiently 95 or 100m ships.

Like it or hate it. We are in the 80-90m OPV business.
And the Type26/Hunter class business.

Theses are good modern designs. As we are finding out, new platforms become more risky and expensive. We are now stuck with what we have as a country going forward. If we axe away, you aren't just killing BAE or NVL, but every supplier that supplies to them.

 

[Tasman]

Pretty obvious to most of us for some time but the Arafura class is now officially listed as a project of concern.

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/releases/2023-10-20/offshore-patrol-vessels-listed-project-concern

Tas

 

[Morgo]

For example the Yard at Henderson, isn't good at 5000t+ ships. The painting can handle whole OPV sized ships like an automotive spray booth, but can't handle whole frigates, only sections. Think about maintenance painting etc, costs go through the roof. Maybe 10 times the cost. 140m is a lot bigger than 80m and think about birthing etc. Another billion.. The build hall is configured to handle lots of 80-90m ships. Im not even sure if we can handle efficiently 95 or 100m ships.

You make good points. Just don’t build anything bigger than OPVs and small amphibs in WA then? We absolutely should not constrain the capability of the RAN because we need to send more pork to Perth.