Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[JBRobbo]

From the 'enhanced lethality surface combatant fleet' pdf posted by Scott Eleaurant earlier

"At least seven, and optimally 11, Tier 2 ships, optimised for undersea warfare, to operate both independently and in conjunction with the Tier 1 ships to secure maritime trade routes, northern approaches and escort military assets. Consistent with the DSR and our Terms of Reference, it is essential these vessels include the ability to:
• operate a Maritime Combat Helicopter
• provide undersea warfare through a depressed active/passive towed array sonar and have the ability to store, handle and employ lightweight torpedoes
• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems
• provide maritime and land strike
• provide force protection"


The 25 minor war vessels includes the Navy's 6x Arafura's and 8x Evolved Capes + the Border Force's 11x Evolved Capes.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

The South Korean Daegu class FFX Batch II listed as a potential light frigate is described here. It is only 3600 tonnes and has 16 VLS plus RAM, similar to the Alfa3000. I was impressed by the 8,000 mile cruising range.

FFX-II (Daegu Class) Multi-Role Frigates

Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering is building the FFX-II frigates to replace the ROK Navy's ageing fleet of corvettes and frigates.

www.naval-technology.com

The following Daegu class FFX Batch III "Chungnam" class is listed here. It has an AESA radar mast similar to the post refit Anzacs. its 500 tonnes heavier, so about 4100 tones.

HHI Launches First Chungnam-Class FFX Batch III Frigate for ROK Navy - Naval News

South Korea’s HHI launched ROKS Chungnam (FFG-828), the first of six Chungnam-class FFX Batch III frigate to the Republic of Korea Navy.

www.navalnews.com

 

[iambuzzard]

From the Marles presser
First Hunter 2034, 6th Hunter 2043
next gen DDG will follow.
first GP Frigate 2029, 4th by 2034 first 3 built offshore, other 8 at Henderson. There are 4 contenders, Spain, Germany, ROK, Japan, winner announced 2025, will be in the 4-6000t range.
LOSV mid 30s-mid 40s, to work with the Hobarts and Hunters.
Cost $54B, $11.1B increased budget over next decade.
Anzac to be decommissioned.
No Anzac TransCAP.

The ability to put a vessel in the water before 2030 and 4 by 2034 may have what cost Babcock and some others. The 4 countries chosen have significant ability to build ships in place now.

3 OS and 8 at Henderson

Also, the Babcock design has a 57mm main gun. Most of the others offer up to 127mm.

 

[At lakes]

Also, the Babcock design has a 57mm main gun. Most of the others offer up to 127mm.

The Babcock design the Arrowhead 140 is offered with the 57 or 76 or the 127. Also the Arrowhead 120 concept design is also offered with the same size main guns

https://www.arrowhead140.com/

https://www.babcockinternational.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arrowhead-120-EN-DIGITAL.pdf

 

[Reptilia]

The Defence statements are here.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/independent-analysis-navy-surface-combatant-fleet

The report "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant fleet" (Hillarides report) is here. It is 24 pages. It confirms the specific frigate platforms under consideration:
"Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new general
purpose frigate:
Meko A-200
Mogami 30FFM
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III
Navantia ALFA3000"

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Enhanced_Lethality_Surface_Combatant_Fleet_web.pdf

If the above is set in stone, not a fan personally. We will get frigates 1 or 2 generations behind once they are in service.
MEKO a200 has already had it’s day hence why they offered the evolved version, the a210.
Mogami has had some issues and they will stop the build at 12 and instead move to a larger ffm in 2027 with improvements over the Mogami design.
The Daegu is already a generation behind with the Chungnams coming into service now and the 4th batch planned.
Navantias alpha 3000 has been called a corvette since it was first shown, the alpha 5000 is no chance. Surely we are done with Navantia after the problems we have had.

Out of all of those, I really hope they decide to go with the new ffm over the Mogami. If both Japanese shipyards are at full tilt, they can produce 2 mogami sized frigates a year over 2 yards. They are also delivered on time and on budget.

 

[d-ron84]

The Defence statements are here.

https://www.defence.gov.au/about/reviews-inquiries/independent-analysis-navy-surface-combatant-fleet

The report "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant fleet" (Hillarides report) is here. It is 24 pages. It confirms the specific frigate platforms under consideration:
"Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new general
purpose frigate:
Meko A-200
Mogami 30FFM
Daegu class FFX Batch II and III
Navantia ALFA3000"

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-02/Enhanced_Lethality_Surface_Combatant_Fleet_web.pdf

Here is the TL;DR one page version, with pretty clipart

Independent Analysis into Navy's Surface Combatant Fleet | About | Defence

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Only going off Wiki here, but the timeline for the GP frigate would seem to suit Navantia with its F110.

 

[iambuzzard]

Wanting the first hulls in the water by the late 2020s probably means anything too developmental is a no go, so Alpha 5000, FFX batch 4 and A210 are likely out. FFM might be bit marginal depending on how much it'd an upgraded Mogami vs substantially modified design.

Spain/Navantia we should add the Alpha-3000 ("Tasman class") as a possibility as it just slips into the specs as currently defined (ANZAC class ~3600 tons to 50% larger Alpha-3000 claimed as pretty much bang on 3600 tons, twice as many missiles as ANZAC, so 16 Mk41 VLS consistant with model of Alpha-3000 shown last year).

32 Mk.41 VLS strike length would be better. How many of the candidates have that?

 

[Oldsig]

A bit odd, I know the type 31 has slipped slightly but they are still expected to deliver all 5 ships by the early 2030s.

Frigates from the 4 countries
Korea - Hyundai or Hanwha - Chungnam(FFX Batch 3) or **Future(FFX Batch 4), HDF 3200/3500/3800/4000
Japan - Mitsubishi - Mogami or **FFM
Germany - TKMS - MEKO A200 or *A210
Spain - Navantia - F110 or *Alpha 5000

*None planned or in production.
**planned, not in production but will be before the end of decade.

The potential Hanwha takeover of Austal and the silhouettes on display at indo pacific make me lean towards Korea getting the nod.

The Spanish and German options are effectively the AWD and Anzac class progenitors. Seems more likely we go Korean or Japanese.

oldsig

 

[Anthony_B_78]

The Spanish and German options are effectively the AWD and Anzac class progenitors. Seems more likely we go Korean or Japanese.

oldsig

Aren't they more derivatives of those earlier designs? And have our experiences with the Anzacs and Hobarts really been so bad that we wouldn't consider these options? Could it be a case of better the devil you know, less risk?

 

[Reptilia]

32 Mk.41 VLS strike length would be better. How many of the candidates have that?

Korea - Hyundai or Hanwha - (16cells)Daegu, Chungnam(FFX Batch 3) or **(16-32cells)Future(FFX Batch 4), HDF 3200/3500/3800/4000
Japan - Mitsubishi - (16 cells)Mogami or **(32 cells)FFM
Germany - TKMS - MEKO (16-32cells)A200 or *(32cells)A210
Spain - Navantia - (16cells)Alpha 3000 or (16-32cells)F110 or *(32cells)Alpha 5000

7 x 16cells = 112
7 x 32cells = 224
11 x 16cells = 176
11 x 32cells = 352

Going with 32 cells would seem like a no brainer. It’s also clear with new gen warships the number of cells continues to increase.

 

[Redlands18]

The Spanish and German options are effectively the AWD and Anzac class progenitors. Seems more likely we go Korean or Japanese.

oldsig

Completely different Superstructure with LO built in, significantly different hull and a very different machinery layout on the A200 compared to the Anzacs. The A200 has proven itself in the Southern Ocean, being used by the South African Navy. The F110 on the other hand has a much older pedigree, its hull having been evolved through the F-100 from the Perry design.

 

[Armchair]

Aren't they more derivatives of those earlier designs? And have our experiences with the Anzacs and Hobarts really been so bad that we wouldn't consider these options? Could it be a case of better the devil you know, less risk?

There is also strategic risk for decision makers are to consider. The European yards are helpfully remote from both China and North Korea.

 

[JBRobbo]

Quite alarming frankly to think this reflects the government's view on the state of current and projected world affairs. We knew the fleet would be larger, but this scale is something else entirely. I know we hear about China everyday and for most people it's easy to brush off as some far away land, but a costly and uncharacteristic response from the government like this should hopefully ram it home that things really could get serious.

 

[Armchair]

Completely different Superstructure with LO built in, significantly different hull and a very different machinery layout on the A200 compared to the Anzacs. The A200 has proven itself in the Southern Ocean, being used by the South African Navy. The F110 on the other hand has a much older pedigree, its hull having been evolved through the F-100 from the Perry design.

The Spanish exemplar nominated in the analysis is the Alpha 3000. Nothing to stop them adding others I guess.

 

[Volkodav]

Quite alarming frankly to think this reflects the government's view on the state of current and projected world affairs. We knew the fleet would be larger, but this scale is something else entirely. I know we hear about China everyday and for most people it's easy to brush off as some far away land, but a costly and uncharacteristic response from the government like this should hopefully ram it home to them that things really could get serious.

Look at it more holistically.

Geography indicates australia needs and has always needed 20 or more major combatants. This is a minimum, assuming a ten year warning time.

16-17 majors, plus another 4 in the RNZN, was the minimum required number of majors determined necessary at the end of the cold war.

Back in the 60s and 70s there were a number of attempts to get corvettes, frigates or light destroyers to bolster numbers Prior to that there were war built frigates and corvettes in reserve.

 

[Oldsig]

Aren't they more derivatives of those earlier designs? And have our experiences with the Anzacs and Hobarts really been so bad that we wouldn't consider these options? Could it be a case of better the devil you know, less risk?

Rather a case that they've already closed down production of the older types and not proven the newer

Oldsig

 

[iambuzzard]

Korea - Hyundai or Hanwha - (16cells)Daegu, Chungnam(FFX Batch 3) or **(16-32cells)Future(FFX Batch 4), HDF 3200/3500/3800/4000
Japan - Mitsubishi - (16 cells)Mogami or **(32 cells)FFM
Germany - TKMS - MEKO (16-32cells)A200 or *(32cells)A210
Spain - Navantia - (16cells)Alpha 3000 or (16-32cells)F110 or *(32cells)Alpha 5000

7 x 16cells = 112
7 x 32cells = 224
11 x 16cells = 176
11 x 32cells = 352

Going with 32 cells would seem like a no brainer. It’s also clear with new gen warships the number of cells continues to increase.

Thanks Reptilla

 

[Redlands18]

Look at it more holistically.

Geography indicates australia needs and has always needed 20 or more major combatants. This is a minimum, assuming a ten year warning time.

16-17 majors, plus another 4 in the RNZN, was the minimum required number of majors determined necessary at the end of the cold war.

Back in the 60s and 70s there were a number of attempts to get corvettes, frigates or light destroyers to bolster numbers Prior to that there were war built frigates and corvettes in reserve.

I have always thought that the DDL project is the RANs greatest failure. A serious attempt to design Hulls that suit Australia's requirements, instead we are still trying to fit our requirements into hulls designed for operations in the North Atlantic or in North Asian waters or whatever design the UK or the US had available at the time. Other than the US with modified FREMMs*, when was the last time anyone decided to buy 11 MFUs using someone else's design.
*The US could have easily designed their own, given more time.

 

[JBRobbo]

Look at it more holistically.

Geography indicates australia needs and has always needed 20 or more major combatants. This is a minimum, assuming a ten year warning time.

16-17 majors, plus another 4 in the RNZN, was the minimum required number of majors determined necessary at the end of the cold war.

Back in the 60s and 70s there were a number of attempts to get corvettes, frigates or light destroyers to bolster numbers Prior to that there were war built frigates and corvettes in reserve.

Look at it more holistically.

Geography indicates australia needs and has always needed 20 or more major combatants. This is a minimum, assuming a ten year warning time.

16-17 majors, plus another 4 in the RNZN, was the minimum required number of majors determined necessary at the end of the cold war.

Back in the 60s and 70s there were a number of attempts to get corvettes, frigates or light destroyers to bolster numbers Prior to that there were war built frigates and corvettes in reserve.

Yes that's sort of what i was alluding to but no matter the white paper, it's never actually happened in decades, and in a way fair enough, it was understandable in such a benign environment. But now we're going apeshit, huge numbers, huge dollars and even a semi-offshore build which is always a taboo for a politician when the design is one that our industry (theoretically + on time and budget) has the facilities to construct, despite every report suggesting the ADF is falling apart at the seams in every which manner.