Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
A tier 2 with a combat system, VLS etc. will need MEOs, WEOs and PWOs over and above what a PB or even OPV requires.

If you can't get enough of these then go big on your combatants so you can train more.

If you can get enough of these, then post them to real, survivable, warships, not blinged up pleasure craft.
I don't think tier 2 is a permanent composition for the RAN.

I think its a way to cover gaps that have developed, and as easier to crew platforms while we are expanding our navy.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, there is no tier 2. Which is a very short life, for a platform not even defined yet. But these will be easy platforms to dispose of, because small nations, these are the only platforms they can man and afford. I think also if we have some of those, and are in the business of some of those, then we might get some international construction contracts or at least maintaining and upgrade contracts.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
I don't think tier 2 is a permanent composition for the RAN.

I think its a way to cover gaps that have developed, and as easier to crew platforms while we are expanding our navy.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, there is no tier 2. Which is a very short life, for a platform not even defined yet. But these will be easy platforms to dispose of, because small nations, these are the only platforms they can man and afford. I think also if we have some of those, and are in the business of some of those, then we might get some international construction contracts or at least maintaining and upgrade contracts.
And then watch some future government count hulls and go, you don't need batch 3 Hunters or Hobart replacements you have plenty of hulls, upgrade them instead, you got 35-40 years out of the Anzacs.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I don't think tier 2 is a permanent composition for the RAN.

I think its a way to cover gaps that have developed, and as easier to crew platforms while we are expanding our navy.
I wouldn't be surprised if in 20 years, there is no tier 2. Which is a very short life, for a platform not even defined yet. But these will be easy platforms to dispose of, because small nations, these are the only platforms they can man and afford. I think also if we have some of those, and are in the business of some of those, then we might get some international construction contracts or at least maintaining and upgrade contracts.
If gov't were to order/purchase Tier 2 vessels for the RAN with any expectation that they will be out of service 20 years from now, that would almost certainly be a massive waste of money and resources.

If we are being realistic, it would likely be about a decade before the lead ship of a "Tier 2" class of vessels could be brought into RAN service, assuming a programme to make such a selection was started now. This in turn would mean that the lead ship would only have been in service ~a decade before getting decommissioned, assuming that 20 years from now (~2043/2044, or right about when the current plan for the Hunter-class build is supposed to end...) the Tier 2 vessels are taken out of service.

If several Tier 2 vessels were actually ordered, then those beyond the lead ship would be even newer/younger at the time of their end of service.

Now there are a couple of caveats, particularly since AFAIK there is still no public definition of what constitutes a 'Tier 2' vessel, though I would put forth that a weapons and sensor fitout comparable to the ANZAC-class frigates (possibly less CEA-FAR) should likely be the minimum capability fitout. One of the first caveats is that this notional 'Tier 2' vessel might have a fairly basic/simple weapons, sensors and combat system fitout, better than the Arafura-class OPV's are to have but still well short of what would normally be considered a modern combatant. If this were to be the case, then it might be possible that the design and construction could be accelerated with the lead ship brought into service in less than a decade. Alternately, it might be possible for an existing design currently being built in active overseas yards could possibly get selected, which could possibly see a lead ship available in less than a decade as well. Of course there would be the problems a number of us have pointed out which would occur if the RAN were to bring into service a foreign warship design which was built and kitted out in overseas yards using manufacturer selected/sourced kit and systems, as opposed to using what is already in service with the RAN. The need to train Australian personnel to operate and maintain effectively bespoke systems in the RAN, plus the issues with establishing and then maintaining the appropriate logistical chains would likely delay the entry into RAN service for such a class, even if the actual construction of the vessel(s) were complete.

Now consider what the likely per vessel and/or programme cost would be for 'Tier 2' vessels. IIRC the Arafura-class OPV's are currently supposed to cost something like AUD$300 mil. per vessel, and I would expect a larger vessel with actual combat capability to easily be double or triple this, if not more. This would put things into AUD$600 mil. or more (again, much depends on systems selected and fitout) per vessel, with the class to serve for a shorter period per vessel than the Armidale-class patrol boats. TBH this sounds like a rather poor proposition for the RAN, particularly if, as @Redlands18 suggested could happen, some future gov't might simply look at the number of hulls and decide to upgrade existing vessels rather than acquiring proper replacements.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
If gov't were to order/purchase Tier 2 vessels for the RAN with any expectation that they will be out of service 20 years from now, that would almost certainly be a massive waste of money and resources.

If we are being realistic, it would likely be about a decade before the lead ship of a "Tier 2" class of vessels could be brought into RAN service, assuming a programme to make such a selection was started now. This in turn would mean that the lead ship would only have been in service ~a decade before getting decommissioned, assuming that 20 years from now (~2043/2044, or right about when the current plan for the Hunter-class build is supposed to end...) the Tier 2 vessels are taken out of service.

If several Tier 2 vessels were actually ordered, then those beyond the lead ship would be even newer/younger at the time of their end of service.

Now there are a couple of caveats, particularly since AFAIK there is still no public definition of what constitutes a 'Tier 2' vessel, though I would put forth that a weapons and sensor fitout comparable to the ANZAC-class frigates (possibly less CEA-FAR) should likely be the minimum capability fitout. One of the first caveats is that this notional 'Tier 2' vessel might have a fairly basic/simple weapons, sensors and combat system fitout, better than the Arafura-class OPV's are to have but still well short of what would normally be considered a modern combatant. If this were to be the case, then it might be possible that the design and construction could be accelerated with the lead ship brought into service in less than a decade. Alternately, it might be possible for an existing design currently being built in active overseas yards could possibly get selected, which could possibly see a lead ship available in less than a decade as well. Of course there would be the problems a number of us have pointed out which would occur if the RAN were to bring into service a foreign warship design which was built and kitted out in overseas yards using manufacturer selected/sourced kit and systems, as opposed to using what is already in service with the RAN. The need to train Australian personnel to operate and maintain effectively bespoke systems in the RAN, plus the issues with establishing and then maintaining the appropriate logistical chains would likely delay the entry into RAN service for such a class, even if the actual construction of the vessel(s) were complete.

Now consider what the likely per vessel and/or programme cost would be for 'Tier 2' vessels. IIRC the Arafura-class OPV's are currently supposed to cost something like AUD$300 mil. per vessel, and I would expect a larger vessel with actual combat capability to easily be double or triple this, if not more. This would put things into AUD$600 mil. or more (again, much depends on systems selected and fitout) per vessel, with the class to serve for a shorter period per vessel than the Armidale-class patrol boats. TBH this sounds like a rather poor proposition for the RAN, particularly if, as @Redlands18 suggested could happen, some future gov't might simply look at the number of hulls and decide to upgrade existing vessels rather than acquiring proper replacements.
I did see/read an utterance from CN or another “two star” who described a tier 2 as equivalent to an Anzac.
My apologies, can’t find it!
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I did see/read an utterance from CN or another “two star” who described a tier 2 as equivalent to an Anzac.
My apologies, can’t find it!
Yes saw that, I think it was Hammond.

I would add ANZAC in range and role rather than armament, otherwise we will have 10 kt blinged up opvs again.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
And then watch some future government count hulls and go, you don't need batch 3 Hunters or Hobart replacements you have plenty of hulls, upgrade them instead, you got 35-40 years out of the Anzacs.
Maybe. Maybe we have Arafura's and don't need Hunters or Hobarts. Maybe we have Capes, so we don't need Arafuras, Hunters, Hobarts, Anzacs or Collins or SSNs, or Canberra's, just a cape only force. I can certainly agree in the past that was a legitimate risk, I am not sure that is the case. "We can't have more capable platforms because they will cut more capable platforms" doesn't ring as much as it used to. If we are going to poo poo any new builds because it threatens the Hunters we won't build anything. We have to learn to share and play together and trust each other. Put this interstate, inter-service and inter and intra-partisan party bickering behind us. Or we lose. Lose big.

Three years until 2027 and its getting closer not further away. Maybe we should put a big bloodly countdown clock in Parliment like some have . If politicians screw this, we should riot. They only get away what we let them get away with.

How many Iron dome in the last 2 months? How many SM-2 intercepts in the last quarter? How many combat fires of 155m in the past 12 months? Didn't Venezuela just have a referendum to invade half of Guyana? Didn't the Chinese just zap our divers with sonar? Aren't our P8's already chewing Chinese Chaff? Aren't the Philippines literally getting pushed around in the SCS daily? Didn't we just get SSN greenlit by congress?

Your choice. 3 more Hobarts II or 6 x 3,500t light frigates. The current thinking is the 3 new Hobart's would break crewing and cost too much, take too long and not be able to cover the missions the 8 Anzacs currently do. There is hope that 6 new ~3,500t ships can be built faster, crewed, are cheaper and can pick up some of the slack and spend more time at sea generally and help train and retain more RAN while we wait for Hunters and refit the Hobarts. Then pushed out to some regional friendlies.

If you think 3,500t light frigates threaten the Hunters, how do you feel about 7,000t Hobart IIs? Are they good? 48VLS, 5", towed array, etc. Who do we push those off onto afterwards? Not sure about the RAN with just 6 surface combatants.

Its not about easy choices, its about hard ones. The lesser of two weevils. Not my idea or my solution, just discussing what options seem to be being thrashed around.
 

Severely

New Member
Yes saw that, I think it was Hammond.

I would add ANZAC in range and role rather than armament, otherwise we will have 10 kt blinged up opvs again.
This is the reply to a question from Hammond quoted in APDR. Recently. He defines Anzacs as tier 2 and Hobarts as tier 1.

VADM Mark Hammond: There are many worldwide trends, particularly in the maritime domain. The DSR is a reaction to some of those trends. It is also a reaction to the geostrategic environment, which i t describes as having changed markedly since the Defence Strategic Update of 2020.

The DSR talked about warning times being diminished. As you know, it takes time to change the size and character of a technically advanced navy like ours. Ships are designed and built over an extended period – for a Tier One warship that is often about ten years, going from concept to design, construction and in the water. It can be longer for submarines and some other platforms.

In the context of the current review the focus for me is on Epoch One, which is the fleet in being of eight ANZAC Class frigates – which I describe as Tier Two ships – the Three Air Warfare Destroyers, or Tier One combatants, six Collins class submarines. There are also two or three large amphibious ships, depending on whether you include HMAS Choules along with HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.

A lot of my focus – aligned with my tenure – is unsurprisingly on Epoch One, and I’m optimising the availability, sustainability and lethality of the surface force and the fleet in being. This also includes the Collins submarines and the patrol boats.


The DSR contemplates a number o f considerations for the surface fleet, but that is deliberately not proscriptive because everything is so integrated and lead times are so long. This led to the independent assessment team being stood up to have a deeper look at all of this.


I'm just finding the link

 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
This is the reply to a question from Hammond quoted in APDR. Recently. He defines Anzacs as tier 2 and Hobarts as tier 1.

VADM Mark Hammond: There are many worldwide trends, particularly in the maritime domain. The DSR is a reaction to some of those trends. It is also a reaction to the geostrategic environment, which i t describes as having changed markedly since the Defence Strategic Update of 2020.

The DSR talked about warning times being diminished. As you know, it takes time to change the size and character of a technically advanced navy like ours. Ships are designed and built over an extended period – for a Tier One warship that is often about ten years, going from concept to design, construction and in the water. It can be longer for submarines and some other platforms.

In the context of the current review the focus for me is on Epoch One, which is the fleet in being of eight ANZAC Class frigates – which I describe as Tier Two ships – the Three Air Warfare Destroyers, or Tier One combatants, six Collins class submarines. There are also two or three large amphibious ships, depending on whether you include HMAS Choules along with HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide.

A lot of my focus – aligned with my tenure – is unsurprisingly on Epoch One, and I’m optimising the availability, sustainability and lethality of the surface force and the fleet in being. This also includes the Collins submarines and the patrol boats.


The DSR contemplates a number o f considerations for the surface fleet, but that is deliberately not proscriptive because everything is so integrated and lead times are so long. This led to the independent assessment team being stood up to have a deeper look at all of this.


I'm just finding the link

Also
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The RAN also had different needs.

We already have a tier 1 and tier 2 combatants.

Hobarts and Hunters are cool and all. But we may want something that can do high frequency patrolling around the south Pacific.
While I get the idea that there is a fear that Tier 2 eats into tier 1 lunch, its more likely to eat in to Patrol and mine warfare small boat areas. We still definitely want to send patrols out to our friends and family in the South Pacific. Operate with their guardian boats, and be present. Its not just about blue water high intensity warfare.

1702420898602.png

Selling sailors on a small shiny new, reliable, modern, platform, increasing RAN fleet numbers and promotion positions, and doing regular 30 day trips around the South Pacific, from the east coast, sounds the the kind of thing that may get more people in and keep them in the RAN and the ADF.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Tier 1 (12-18) my guess
4-6 Type 83 (128/+ cell) (165-180m), AAW, bigger cells, more power generation and storage, lasers, hypersonics etc
6-12 Type 26 (32/48/64/96cell) (150m), all the same variant or split between ASW and AAW.

Tier 2 options
Mitsubishi Mogami B2 (142m)
Babcock Arrowhead 140 (139m)
BAE Adaptable strike frigate (130m)
TKMS MEKO A210 (127m)

-New ships lifts. Darwin/Cairns. 120m or less, 5,000ton or less.

Darwin
+ New 250m Wharf HMAS Coonawarra

Cairns
+ New Wharf HMAS Cairns combined with existing (300m+)

Around 120m or less, under 5000ton options left
Navantia Alpha 5000 (121m)
Babcock Arrowhead 120 (120m)
*Current Anzac class (118m)
Gibbs & Cox Light Frigate (117m)
Navantia Alpha 3000 Tasman (109m)
NVL group K130 (90m)
Luerssen MMPV90 (90m)
Luerssen Arafura(upgunned) (80m)
Austal Manta (78m)
Austal Evolved Cape class(upgunned) (58m)

Potential Hanwha takeover of Austal could possibly lead to Korean tier 2 also.

Future sustainment of tier 2 vessels
PROJECT GALILEO RMC(Regional maintenance centres) (West-Henderson, East-Sydney, North East-Cairns, North-Darwin)



You don't learn do you? One month ban for fantasy fleet posts. Think seriously during this holiday because if you fail to learn the lesson and we have a repeat performance when you come back, the next ban will be permanent.
 

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Well it seems there isn’t going to be anything other than speculation through to March April 24 On what the RAN will look like. In the real world we have had a few lucky cards fall in our lap thought no fault of anyone…the budget deficits planned for 22/23 turned into a surplus and it’s looking more likely the planned deficit for 23/24 is going to be a surplus. Bracket creep on personal income tax, low unemployment and high commodity prices pouring around $2 billion per month ahead of treasury forecasts into government coffers. in addition, removing certain disabilities like Anxiety and Autism ( Close to 1 of every 2 new NDIS participant diagnosed with Autism apparently) from NDIS scheme , along with greater spending compliance should help stem the bleeding there.

The point being while cash remains tight things don’t look quite right as dire as forward estimates were indicating.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well it seems there isn’t going to be anything other than speculation through to March April 24 On what the RAN will look like. In the real world we have had a few lucky cards fall in our lap thought no fault of anyone…the budget deficits planned for 22/23 turned into a surplus and it’s looking more likely the planned deficit for 23/24 is going to be a surplus. Bracket creep on personal income tax, low unemployment and high commodity prices pouring around $2 billion per month ahead of treasury forecasts into government coffers. in addition, removing certain disabilities like Anxiety and Autism ( Close to 1 of every 2 new NDIS participant diagnosed with Autism apparently) from NDIS scheme , along with greater spending compliance should help stem the bleeding there.

The point being while cash remains tight things don’t look quite right as dire as forward estimates were indicating.
Government needs to be careful on the NDIS side of things, in that they need to look at the cost benefit.

Prior to NDIS a very large number of people were pretty much excluded from society because of the social model of disability, that is, because they were excluded from society because of the lack of accommodation of their differences, they became a burden on society.

A kid who is bullied out of school doesn't get an education or a job etc. an adult who is excluded from work doesn't pay tax. A person who needs care, and doesn't have access to appropriate housing, ends up in a hospital or nursing home at much greater expense.

Now the other side of the equation, we constantly rant about shortages of scientists, engineers, technicians and skilled trades, don't forget other types of skilled practicioners and professionals. Well guess what, a great many of these people were are short of suffer from anxiety, are autistic, ADHD/AHD etc.

Ever heard the saying "how do you tell an extroverted engineer? They look at your shoes instead of their own".

What's the difference between a successful autistic scientist, engineer, technician or skilled trade and a shy smart kid who never made it through school? Answer, adequate and appropriate accommodation and support. Looking at many of the MEOs, WEOs, defence scientists and engineers I've known I can tell you now, they weren't usually the confident jocks in the school yards.
 
Last edited:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Is it feasible to add containerised missiles to some of the lhd ships per this article to add to load out for fleet
Club-K Container Missile System | Military.com
It is a container based system meaning it will need deck space in addition to securing devices and services. That sort of realestate is high up in these vessels. In addition it is design around what appear to be russian missiles. So I don't think so.
 

Pusser01

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It is a container based system meaning it will need deck space in addition to securing devices and services. That sort of realestate is high up in these vessels. In addition it is design around what appear to be russian missiles. So I don't think so.
I think seaspear was mainly looking at the concept of containerised missiles & not specifically advocating for the Russian missiles. The US has recently proved the concept with SM-6. I do agree though that the deck space on the LHD's is better suited to their core role. Cheers. This "Ghost Fleet" Ship Firing An SM-6 Missile From A Modular Launcher Is A Glimpse Of The Future (thedrive.com)
 

protoplasm

Active Member
What's the difference between a successful autistic scientist, engineer, technician or skilled trade and a shy smart kid who never made it through school? Answer, adequate and appropriate accommodation and support. Looking at many of the MEOs, WEOs, defence scientists and engineers if known I can tell you now, they weren't usually the confident jocks in the school yards.
You've just described a huge part of my job, supporting students like this to be able to navigate their way through senior secondary education to make it through to engineering, advanced science and maths. It can be incredibly frustrating at times with the barriers that the system puts up, but I'm pretty sure in the last 5 years I've put at least 50 future engineers/scientists into tertiary education who otherwise wouldn't have got there.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Government needs to be careful on the NDIS side of things, in that they need to look at the cost benefit.

Prior to NDIS a very large number of people were pretty much excluded from society because of the social model of disability, that is, because they were excluded from society because of the lack of accommodation of their differences, they became a burden on society.

A kid who is bullied out of school doesn't get an education or a job etc. an adult who is excluded from work doesn't pay tax. A person who needs care, and doesn't have access to appropriate housing, ends up in a hospital or nursing home at much greater expense.

Now the other side of the equation, we constantly rant about shortages of scientists, engineers, technicians and skilled trades, don't forget other types of skilled practicioners and professionals. Well guess what, a great many of these people were are short of suffer from anxiety, are autistic, ADHD/AHD etc.

Ever heard the saying "how do you tell an extroverted engineer? They look at your shoes instead of their own".

What's the difference between a successful autistic scientist, engineer, technician or skilled trade and a shy smart kid who never made it through school? Answer, adequate and appropriate accommodation and support. Looking at many of the MEOs, WEOs, defence scientists and engineers if known I can tell you now, they weren't usually the confident jocks in the school yards.
Thank you Volks. My daughter is autistic and it's only through the support of NDIS and an excellent case manager that we are able to get her the help to adapt to her condition and play to her strengths. She is a very smart girl. Most of the smartest people on the planet are somewhere on the spectrum.
I'm sure Albert Einstein and Issac Newton were.
Autism is not a fantasy, it is a real condition that affects millions.
 

south

Well-Known Member
Thank you Volks. My daughter is autistic and it's only through the support of NDIS and an excellent case manager that we are able to get her the help to adapt to her condition and play to her strengths. She is a very smart girl. Most of the smartest people on the planet are somewhere on the spectrum.
I'm sure Albert Einstein and Issac Newton were.
Autism is not a fantasy, it is a real condition that affects millions.
Further - beyond the (not insignificant) human side there are sound Economic reasons. Early intervention results in substantially better outcomes. As a nation then we see improved outcomes overall and a reduced long term spend.

Win win.
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Has there been any news regarding the JSS program to replace HMAS Choules since last year's Indo Pacific Expo?
I feel like the recent successes of Navantia in the landing craft programs doesn't bode well for BMT's offer even though I think it's better than Navantia's design.
Images of both are shown here: New Details Emerge on Australia's Future Joint Support Ship - Naval News
What recent Navantia landing craft successes? LMV-M is a Birdon design to be built by Austal.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Further - beyond the (not insignificant) human side there are sound Economic reasons. Early intervention results in substantially better outcomes. As a nation then we see improved outcomes overall and a reduced long term spend.

Win win.
Very true, we need all of our best and brightest going forward, if we are excluding, or worse, breaking people because they don't conform to arbitrary requirements, we are hurting ourselves.

I am going way off topic but to use the veterans as an example, not because I'm equating combat service with anything else, but rather I am looking at the effect of stress and trauma on a group of psychologically vetted and screaned individuals. There is damage service and service conditions has done to so many, but look at the manifestation of the damage. It is not dissimilar to what is seen in kids who are diagnosed with different types of neuro diversity, or have suffered abuse.

Much of the anxiety, shyness, aggression, violence and other behaviours associated with autism are also common responses to trauma. There are behaviours that are now seen as unacceptable to subject service personnel to that some people still believe is appropriate to use on children who have difficulty conforming.

Learn to mask your differences and conform before we let you do anything else. If you can't conform you can't get in, if you are already here, we will make you leave, we will break you if necessary.

It is very much an economic issue because many of our best and brightest are being systematically excluded from the areas we, as a nation, need them to be taking the lead in.
 
Last edited:
Top