Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

I would be seriously surprised if Australia looked at these 3 designs, they are all brand new designs, how much would Australia be prepared to gamble on an all-new design when we are doing it already with the Hunter.

Get

Not sure that it would really be much to beat. A vessel (whether classed as a corvette or a frigate does not matter at this point) that displaces ~3,600t has the same displacement that the ANZAC-class FFH's started out having, and with a length of 109m is possibly ~9m shorter that the FFH, with a beam of 15.3m might be 0.3m broader that current RAN FFH's. This becomes significant in that the ANZAC-class frigates have been found to be very limited in terms of what more can be done to them, with not much remaining in terms of growth margins as well as topweight issues which require careful management. Side note, I believe that the overall displacement of RAN FFH's which have been upgraded is now ~3,800t.

Going with a new class/design which is perhaps slightly smaller, but essentially the same displacement and with a possibly greater weapons loadout, I would naturally wonder what the range/endurance of the design currently is, as well as what margins remain for future growth.



Frankly, if someone wants me to be less excited about more Hobart-class or Hobart II-class vessels, they would really have their work cut out.

If the 'modified' version of the Hunter-class deletes the towed sonar array, particularly if done so in a way that would make it difficult to add back in later, then perhaps having Osborne do a simultaneous/split built. With the towed sonar getting removed, one of the significant ship-mounted ASW sonars is gone, and so to a fair bit of the ASW focus of the Hunter-class. At that point it might make more sense to also not spend all the coin involved in rafting and noise isolation for the more air defence oriented vessels.

I still think that the RAN will need a fair number of ASW frigates given the likely number of subs which will be operated by various powers in the Indo-Pacific region in the coming years.

I'm a bit lost in the figures.
Preserving the Hunters existing ASW capability. Towed array and two embarked helicopters parked in tandem in the hangar /mision bay.
What number of additional VLS could be added in the remaining space of the mission bay?
I'm guessing an addition 16 on either side of the forward helicopter for a total of 32.
A total of 64 VLS for the ship and it retains its ASW capability.

Does this sound correct?


Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

Get

I'm a bit lost in the figures.
Preserving the Hunters existing ASW capability. Towed array and two embarked helicopters parked in tandem in the hangar /mision bay.
What number of additional VLS could be added in the remaining space of the mission bay?
I'm guessing an addition 16 on either side of the forward helicopter for a total of 32.
A total of 64 VLS for the ship and it retains its ASW capability.

Does this sound correct?


Cheers S

This would be the best outcome Imo.
Having a ship that can compete at any level of warfare, stand alone, escort or be apart of a coalition fleet.

A destroyer with no ASW capability or ASW frigate with a small missile load … both will require additional support.

if we are going all out anti air/surface, the type 83 would be a much better option long term. cells need to be longer(hypersonics), lasers + batteries, uuv/usv etc, all on a much bigger platform.

 

[iambuzzard]

with the bae proposal…
The sweet spot is surely (multi role) 64 cells, 16 nsm + ASW capabilities + main gun.

over

current
32 mk41 VLS + 8 nsm + asw capabilities + main gun

on the table
96 VLS (96 mk 41) + 16 nsm + main gun (- ASW capabilities)
or
96 VLS (64 mk 41 + 32 mk 57) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
or
128 VLS (128 mk 41) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)

If BAe are proposing this the towed array plus the 127mm gun have to stay. Even adding 32 Mk.41 in the mission bay would give the ship 64 cells. If you devoted half of these to quad packed ESSM it still leaves 32 for a mix of offensive ordinance. With 16 NSM this would make it a very powerful ship. As long as it has adequate CIWS and Nulka this option would be hard to beat.
Could this be done under the current schedule to the first batch or not? We still don't know what the actual specifications for the design are, just some vague description.
The first of your options would certainly make sense for the second batch.
If we went beyond 9 hulls with alternate batches of dedicated ASW and AWD ships it would probably fix the Hobart replacement question.
I look forward to your answers to this layman's questions.

 

[iambuzzard]

That

Get

I'm a bit lost in the figures.
Preserving the Hunters existing ASW capability. Towed array and two embarked helicopters parked in tandem in the hangar /mision bay.
What number of additional VLS could be added in the remaining space of the mission bay?
I'm guessing an addition 16 on either side of the forward helicopter for a total of 32.
A total of 64 VLS for the ship and it retains its ASW capability.

Does this sound correct?


Cheers S

That makes sense.

 

[swerve]

If BAe are proposing this the towed array plus the 127mm gun have to stay. Even adding 32 Mk.41 in the mission bay would give the ship 64 cells. If you devoted half of these to quad packed ESSM it still leaves 32 for a mix of offensive ordinance. ...

If you have any Mk 41 cells permanently devoted to ESSM those cells are a waste of space, weight & money. Mk 56'd do.

 

[OldTex]

If you have any Mk 41 cells permanently devoted to ESSM those cells are a waste of space, weight & money. Mk 56'd do.

The use of a single type of VLS would reduce the logistic and training load compared to a solution with multiple different systems. While a reduction in weight with using Mk56 might be beneficial in some cases, the additional deck space required to provide the same number of operational missiles would negate that benefit. The Mk 41 can quad pack ESSM while Mk 56 can only dual pack from the information I have read.

 

[swerve]

Yup. Less deck penetration, but possibly more deck space (smaller cells, but fewer missiles in each one), less weight, perhaps more flexibility in positioning (because of depth), but more complexity if you have both types rather than one.

Someone will have to do some calculations & make a judgement in each case. I note that the Danes chose to operate both types on the Iver Huitfeldts - & only Mk 56 on the Absalons.

 

[recce.k1]

What number of additional VLS could be added in the remaining space of the mission bay?
I'm guessing an addition 16 on either side of the forward helicopter for a total of 32.
A total of 64 VLS for the ship and it retains its ASW capability.

This graphic gives an indication - 64.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721776253592801571

But to answer your specific question, you ask whether reducing the VLS systems further to retain some or most of its ASW capability .... extrapolating BAE's statement in Naval News (the opposite way) suggests perhaps it could "reduce" the vessel's top weight of the high-mounted VLS cells but whether that is enough to retain some or most ASW capability ... is probably best answered by the DefPros here or ultimately BAE as the subject matter experts.

But I have a question, in the graphic showing the positioning on the port and starboard CIWS's, would it not be better to slighlty extend out its mounting/placement to provide better coverage for its search and tracking antennas, as other parts of the superstructure appear as if they may constrict their coverage? No doubt BAE have modelled this and presumably the results are acceptable to the RAN (but just asking from a perception angle).

 

[CJR]

If I had to guess, I would say its the Avante Alpha 4000, the F110 is still using the hull form of the F-101/Hobart.
Tasman is a strange choice for a name for Navantia to use, as it has already been assigned to the 3rd Hunter.

So, looks like they call it the Avante Alpha 5000...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721796287375524243

 

[Reptilia]

Babcock showing off Number 10 Dock to Marles with what looks to be SSN-Aukus model in the dock.

https://x.com/NavyLookout/status/1721868777296445525?s=20

 

[hauritz]

Yeah - in the rush to salivate, lets not forget that 'Tasman-Class' (and BTW, a stupid name for a RAN vessel. Not Navy and very antagonistic to Maori's along with pretty questionable ethics and leadership) is slightly more advanced than someone sketching a ship in MS Paint. It's 50% heavier than the Saudi ships for starters, meaning significant redesign. It's years away from where Hunter is in the process right now.

When I see something like the Tasman Class my first thought is that this is a Euro frigate designed to fight in European waters against a potential foe that to be honest is now a shadow of its former self.

In Australia’s case we must look at the possibility of engaging with a navy that in many ways is as advanced and capable as the USN. This navy is backed by the world’s second most powerful airforce and possibly the world’s largest stock of land based anti-ship weapons.

It is worth bearing this in mind when choosing what sort of vessel you will put your children in to when sending them in to harms way.

When looking at the USN, which is perhaps the template we should be looking at when rebuilding our navy, their idea of a tier two warship is the constellation class. They have famously backed away from the idea of a corvette/LCS sized ship. The Chinese are moving a lot of their corvette sized vessels into their coastguard. Despite this we still seem to be looking at these admittedly cool looking Euro corvettes.

There are no cheap or quick fixes for the navy. We need proper warships and as things stand that will be the Hunter class.

 

[StingrayOZ]

So is tier 2 a 3,400t corvette or a 5,000t frigate?

also navantia flight 3
https://x.com/sweeneygov/status/1721788182524784676?s=20

The Flight III looks like something we should have selected to build in 2005 instead of the basic f105.

Clearly there is some bluesky cold pitching going on. Looks like not just members of the public are a bit unclear on where the government is going, industry looks to have applied a buckshot approach, offering lots of products with lots of fire power.

Yeah - in the rush to salivate, lets not forget that 'Tasman-Class' (and BTW, a stupid name for a RAN vessel. Not Navy and very antagonistic to Maori's along with pretty questionable ethics and leadership) is slightly more advanced than someone sketching a ship in MS Paint. It's 50% heavier than the Saudi ships for starters, meaning significant redesign. It's years away from where Hunter is in the process right now.

Yeh, not sure how many of these are full blown engineering solutions.. At least the BAE one does actually address the concern that the Hunter class isn't capable enough for missile load out.

Navantia seems to be in full fantasy mode. Its awesome warship porn, but its also not low risk. Some of these look like AI generations. IMO it would be still a huge effort to select Navantia over NVL who offer a similar product, already run the yard and have local suppliers in place. If we were even looking at such a thing, which at the moment, isn't clear that is happening.

I don't think the Tasman class is in competition with the Hunter. One is literally 3 times the size and exists.

But I still find it interesting. The Flight III destroyer is genuinely interesting. I definitely think Spain should build/develop that.

Tasman class name is odd. IMO Tasman isn't a name that has huge relevance for Australia. Yes we have things named after him, but in terms of national identity, is this really part of it. And the third hunter, as mentioned is Tasman. A 16th century Dutch explorer for the VoC.

Out of all the wonderful people, wildlife, and history and words we can draw on, are we really that obsessed with this dutch guy who sailed around the coast once? What message does that send to allies and enemies alike? Why write that name into the future Australian history?

 

[Reptilia]

So is tier 2 a 3,400t corvette or a 5,000t frigate?

The Flight III looks like something we should have selected to build in 2005 instead of the basic f105.

Clearly there is some bluesky cold pitching going on. Looks like not just members of the public are a bit unclear on where the government is going, industry looks to have applied a buckshot approach, offering lots of products with lots of fire power.


Yeh, not sure how many of these are full blown engineering solutions.. At least the BAE one does actually address the concern that the Hunter class isn't capable enough for missile load out.

Navantia seems to be in full fantasy mode. Its awesome warship porn, but its also not low risk. Some of these look like AI generations. IMO it would be still a huge effort to select Navantia over NVL who offer a similar product, already run the yard and have local suppliers in place. If we were even looking at such a thing, which at the moment, isn't clear that is happening.

I don't think the Tasman class is in competition with the Hunter. One is literally 3 times the size and exists.

But I still find it interesting. The Flight III destroyer is genuinely interesting. I definitely think Spain should build/develop that.

Tasman class name is odd. IMO Tasman isn't a name that has huge relevance for Australia. Yes we have things named after him, but in terms of national identity, is this really part of it. And the third hunter, as mentioned is Tasman. A 16th century Dutch explorer for the VoC.

Out of all the wonderful people, wildlife, and history and words we can draw on, are we really that obsessed with this dutch guy who sailed around the coast once? What message does that send to allies and enemies alike? Why write that name into the future Australian history?

It certainly is a great pitch from navantia though, getting both civmec and austal onboard to build 6 tasman class tier 2 ships quickly.
It’s an option the government would usually go for but hopefully logic prevails. clearly Babcocks 140 and Gibbs & Cox offering are the best choices.(Aukus partners + established supply chain)
If speed is the goal, the new batch 2 Mogami would also get us a tier 2 very quickly, if they can build 12 for themselves by end of 2028, what’s stopping them building another 8-12 hulls by 2031-32 and then we integrate ceafar at Henderson. (Significantly more capable ship than Tasman and has some future growth still) V2 142m-17m, 32 VLS, 8-16 SSM, 90 crew still, 30+knt max speed. Increased range over Mogami batch 1.

 

[Redlands18]

So is tier 2 a 3,400t corvette or a 5,000t frigate?

The Flight III looks like something we should have selected to build in 2005 instead of the basic f105.

Clearly there is some bluesky cold pitching going on. Looks like not just members of the public are a bit unclear on where the government is going, industry looks to have applied a buckshot approach, offering lots of products with lots of fire power.


Yeh, not sure how many of these are full blown engineering solutions.. At least the BAE one does actually address the concern that the Hunter class isn't capable enough for missile load out.

Navantia seems to be in full fantasy mode. Its awesome warship porn, but its also not low risk. Some of these look like AI generations. IMO it would be still a huge effort to select Navantia over NVL who offer a similar product, already run the yard and have local suppliers in place. If we were even looking at such a thing, which at the moment, isn't clear that is happening.

I don't think the Tasman class is in competition with the Hunter. One is literally 3 times the size and exists.

But I still find it interesting. The Flight III destroyer is genuinely interesting. I definitely think Spain should build/develop that.

Tasman class name is odd. IMO Tasman isn't a name that has huge relevance for Australia. Yes we have things named after him, but in terms of national identity, is this really part of it. And the third hunter, as mentioned is Tasman. A 16th century Dutch explorer for the VoC.

Out of all the wonderful people, wildlife, and history and words we can draw on, are we really that obsessed with this dutch guy who sailed around the coast once? What message does that send to allies and enemies alike? Why write that name into the future Australian history?

I suspect the Flight III is based on the design Navantia would be working on for the Armada's F-101 replacement, due mid 2030s.

 

[Redlands18]

Who is the indo pac navy getting 2 similar hulls in 2026?

Gibbs&Cox proposes OPV for RAN - Australian Defence Magazine
Been confirmed at Indo-Pacific 2023 its Taiwan, two currently ordered and options for ten more.

 

[Reptilia]

Gibbs&Cox proposes OPV for RAN - Australian Defence Magazine
Been confirmed at Indo-Pacific 2023 its Taiwan, two currently ordered and options for ten more.

China will not be happy.

Not sure a better option on the table for australia than this design…

Unconfirmed reporting says it is based off the Legend class Hull, an evolved PF4921.
127m long, 16m wide, 4,800t+
Given the range of the legend class cutter, even 1/2 or 2/3s that would be significant. Some are saying 6,000 to 8,000nm.
The u.s produced legends for approx 650-670 mill each.

pic from the Australian defence magazine, constellation class behind.

 

[Bob53]

with the bae proposal…
The sweet spot is surely (multi role) 64 cells, 16 nsm + ASW capabilities + main gun.

over

current
32 mk41 VLS + 8 nsm + asw capabilities + main gun

on the table
96 VLS (96 mk 41) + 16 nsm + main gun (- ASW capabilities)
or
96 VLS (64 mk 41 + 32 mk 57) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)
or
128 VLS (128 mk 41) + 16 nsm (-main gun and - ASW capabilities)

This requires the least amount of redesign on the Hunters. The probable 64 AA cells and 16 NSM is a good balance.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

What's the model hiding between the Tasman and Hobart classes? The one with what looks like a 76mm and 16VLS cells forward and more VLS cells amidship? An extra amped up Avante or an AWD derivative of the F-110?

If I had to guess, I would say its the Avante Alpha 4000, the F110 is still using the hull form of the F-101/Hobart.
Tasman is a strange choice for a name for Navantia to use, as it has already been assigned to the 3rd Hunter.

It is an Alpha 5000. Mr. Fish's twitter timeline ( or X, whatever) has info on a vast array of ship designs on display (including the lats Hunter modelings at the Indo Pacific 2023 Expo. One simply need to be inquisitive and look for themselves

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1721796287375524243

 

[StingrayOZ]

Not sure a better option on the table for Australia than this design…

Hard to say IMO.

Is there budget to build this ship? Is there a yard they are ready to partner with? And G&C doesn't have a lot of Australian Footprint.
Its kinda the same problem Babcock have, but worse, Babcock IMO has a larger Australian footprint than G&C.

There products are also competition with each other a ~5-6000t frigate space with 32 VLS, box launchers and a helo. The G&C looks faster on paper, but the Type31 has a gun and perhaps stronger endurance.

Which is why I imagine Navantia throws in their Alpha 5000. Mogami II is available although I didn't see Mitsubishi as a exhibitor. Lurrsen is but not as NVL, but apparently doesn't have the MMPV90 on display, and only the older model of arafura with the 40mm gun.

Navantia has products in every space, but some may require significant design and have significant risk. But they have apparently solved the the CIVMEC/Austal problem, which will be attractive, and they have a significant footprint here with the LHD/DDG/AOR logistics and DDG/LHD build. They have agreements with BAE and Thales.

The Flight III, is a beautiful, clean, looking ship IMO. Any chance we can cut our Hobarts in half and plug them to look like that?
Or hull extend the Hunter so we can have 128 VLS and towed arrays.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

It certainly is a great pitch from navantia though, getting both civmec and austal onboard to build 6 tasman class tier 2 ships quickly.
It’s an option the government would usually go for but hopefully logic prevails. clearly Babcocks 140 and Gibbs & Cox offering are the best choices.(Aukus partners + established supply chain)
If speed is the goal, the new batch 2 Mogami would also get us a tier 2 very quickly, if they can build 12 for themselves by end of 2028, what’s stopping them building another 8-12 hulls by 2031-32 and then we integrate ceafar at Henderson. (Significantly more capable ship than Tasman and has some future growth still) V2 142m-17m, 32 VLS, 8-16 SSM, 90 crew still, 30+knt max speed. Increased range over Mogami batch 1.

The more I follow this discussion the more I am convinced that speed has to be the goal - we need, effectively, an interim frigate to enter service in the early 2030s alongside the first of the Hunters to replace the Anzacs sooner; stabilising the size of our surface force before we can begin to build it up.

This is where a "tier 2" ship makes sense. It doesn't need to be perfect, it needs to meet our needs, yes, but it mostly needs to be available and soon because we've made a mess of our naval acquisitions.