Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Scott Elaurant]

On the question of need for more ships, I agree with Volkodav and JBRobbo. I don't really understand why anyone would think the current RAN fleet size is sufficient to defend Australia. The Anzacs are effectively worn out from overuse in trying to meet our peacetime patrol obligations. How would 11 ships cope with the demands of an actual war?

I think the attention given to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea is unfortunate at times. Even if the RAN is not involved in any conflict there, the demands to patrol Australia's MEP and key shipping routes to and from here are enormous. Consider what Australia would need to do to safeguard convoys of import and export ships to just our five major trading partners (excluding China). That is routes to India, Korea, Japan and USA, plus Singapore for oil. If you estimate the number of warships to escort convoys for that, and apply the "rule of three" then the final number must be 20+.

Overall I am pleasantly surprised by the new "Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet plan, more so than the AUKUS delivery path, which I think is too costly, slow and high risk. The Surface Fleet Plan has some logic to it in considering each of need, immediacy, delivery capability and cost. Even the bits you don't like, it is obvious why they have been added.

I especially liked the commitment to a large class (7 to 11) of GP frigates, of identified existing (current) designs. The habit of some wanting to get a new cutting edge design has to stop. It costs too much and involves technical risks Defence has proven ill equipped to manage. That sort of thinking in the past is why we have wound up with a small, old navy.

Assuming all of the Hunters, GP frigates and LOSVs will all have 32+ VLS cells, this fleet will in aggregate be much more capable, much sooner. With no criticism intended of anyone involved in building it, the Hunter design phase has been far too slow, and the intended build phase looks like more of the same.

 

[JBRobbo]

"• provide air defence through a limited number of point and self-defence systems"

Sounds like ESSM and CIWS only, which makes sense if you want that precious VLS space for TLAM/LRASM (presuming 16-32 strike-length). If only we could co-develop a narrow rocket booster for those ESSM Blk2's that could still be quad-packable (if we're not already)

 

[StingrayOZ]

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

I am not sure we are in love with Europe any more. Recent euro centric defence projects haven't be massively successful. Being remote from China, also is a negative. Europe also tends to have a more distant integration with the US. I don't think this is absolute, and lumping Spain or the UK in with Europe, in a naval sense, is perhaps a bit unfair, Spain (Navantia) and the UK(BAE) are still big elements in the RAN/military ship building/support game here in Australia.

South Korea and Japan are absolutely on the same page as Australia regarding things like China, the threat it poses, South Korea and Japan are also more able to conduct joint operations with Australia. For these countries, its not (just?) a box flogging proposition. If Australia fails, then they directly wear the consequences, perhaps even more than Australia. If deterrence fails, its unlikely any Chinese munitions will fall on Australian soil, that is not the same for SK or JP. For the Japanese and Koreans, they are pretty horrified by the Australian European experience, and some projects which undermines allied naval power in a very strategic partner. They are also very focused on US engagement in Asia, not Europe. The Naval arms race is in Asia, not in Europe.

SK and JP are absolutely interested in this project, in as much as their own national security depends on it. Being included is also important in terms of signaling and benchmarking. I wouldn't rule them out.

Germany has some leverage going on, they also want to spend money, so, Land projects may come into play.

I don't think we should focus too much on published specs.

Its a complex landscape. Its a bold change in direction (but a long time coming).

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

The problem is we don't have 10 years. Really this plan probably should have been launched in 2018, or perhaps a decade earlier. I know there is a lot of excitement and interest, but we really have to acknowledge that the strategic situation is now so bad this is now an ultra urgent priority. Its not from great and better future planning. It is a crisis.

It may be the ultimate defining criteria is simply time. How fast?

Which then may have nothing to do with the design, but about industrial capability and industrial resources. And state backed entities have a big advantage there. For some entities, they may in fact now be trying to move some of their capabilities outside of their own borders due to military threats.

What is in Australia's favor is we have been super resistant to Chinese pressure economic, diplomatic and social. We have huge strategic resources and depth while being very involved and aware. We also have an ever deeping and envious relationship with the increasingly enigmatic Americans.

This, perhaps won't be a design contest. It will likely be a question of what industrial resources can be mustered into the fight.

I just wished we were at this point 12+ months ago.

 

[Reptilia]

What are peoples thoughts on having LOSVs trail the Tier 1 ships adding an additional 32 cells over the upgunned Hunter(which would result in the loss of the mission bay and most of the ASW capability)

 

[hauritz]

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.

Actually NZ should jump on board for this. Australia will be building three of these frigates overseas, probably kick in with Australia and save a few dollars on their own ANZAC replacement.

 

[StevoJH]

Hopefully this plan goes ahead as announced, however there is plenty of time (multiple election cycles) between now and when ships start being constructed for governments to meddle or decide that the funding isn't there.

I do find it interesting that nothing was mentioned regarding additional replenishment assets. I struggle to comprehend doubling the size of the surface fleet without increasing the number of replenishment ships.

But also, with ANZAC now gone and Arunta not much newer, doesn't this increase the difficulty of training sufficient senior sailors for these new ships? The Navy now only has 10 MFU's, with the likely situation of dropping to 8 or 9 (HMAS Arunta commissioned 1998) before any of these new ships join the fleet.

 

[old faithful]

One thing I noted in the ABC article was a phrase "as well as upgraded versions of the Hobart destroyers". I wonder if that is an additional 3 overseas built ships or additional cells being fitted to the existing Hobart's?

Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet", which will include six Hunter-class frigates, reduced from an original plan of nine, as well as upgraded versions of the existing Hobart-class destroyers fitted with Tomahawk cruise missiles

 

[Richo99]

One thing I noted in the ABC article was a phrase "as well as upgraded versions of the Hobart destroyers". I wonder if that is an additional 3 overseas built ships or additional cells being fitted to the existing Hobart's?

I think it's just the planned aegis upgrade to the 3 existing ships

 

[MARKMILES77]

Hopefully this plan goes ahead as announced, however there is plenty of time (multiple election cycles) between now and when ships start being constructed for governments to meddle or decide that the funding isn't there.

Not to be too pessimistic but the probability that this plan actually proceeds without major change is surely miniscule.
The only question is whether the Attack Class Programme or the Arafura Class Programme are better models for it's likely future.

But also, with ANZAC now gone and Arunta not much newer, doesn't this increase the difficulty of training sufficient senior sailors for these new ships? The Navy now only has 10 MFU's, with the likely situation of dropping to 8 or 9 (HMAS Arunta commissioned 1998) before any of these new ships join the fleet.

An important point overlooked in all the whoopla.
This plan, though bringing a great increase in capability in the long term, does not provide an increase in fleet numbers for a Decade.
In fact government seems happy to accept a decrease in capability till after 2030 by pulling ANZACs out of service when construction of their replacements hasn't even begun. Not to mention that the planned further upgrade of the ANZACs is scrapped.
Clearly the government still believes we have at least a ten year lead time before we face a significant threat!

 

[Stampede]

Hopefully this plan goes ahead as announced, however there is plenty of time (multiple election cycles) between now and when ships start being constructed for governments to meddle or decide that the funding isn't there.

I do find it interesting that nothing was mentioned regarding additional replenishment assets. I struggle to comprehend doubling the size of the surface fleet without increasing the number of replenishment ships.

But also, with ANZAC now gone and Arunta not much newer, doesn't this increase the difficulty of training sufficient senior sailors for these new ships? The Navy now only has 10 MFU's, with the likely situation of dropping to 8 or 9 (HMAS Arunta commissioned 1998) before any of these new ships join the fleet.

My Naval Review predictions were a fail so mud on my face.

This review is realistically a road map to a future fleet.
Today it's aspirattional.
What reality it takes, time will tell.
For the Tier 2 ship to work it will need to be able to sail into harms way.
Either as a single unit against a mid level threat or under the protection of the Tier 1 vessels against a high end threat.
To achieve this, it will by necessity be of a significant size.

It will be interesting as to what that looks like.
How quick to service
How many are actually built.
What benefits this approach has versus addition Hunters.

It could prove a really good decision or a grand mistake.
Schools out pending more information.

Either way I'd suspect it will not offer any realistic capability this decade.
Hope I'm wrong.

Cheers S

 

[Stampede]

Not to be too pessimistic but the probability that this plan actually proceeds without major change is surely miniscule.
The only question is whether the Attack Class Programme or the Arafura Class Programme are better models for it's likely future.




An important point overlooked in all the whoopla.
This plan, though bringing a great increase in capability in the long term, does not provide an increase in fleet numbers for a Decade.
In fact government seems happy to accept a decrease in capability till after 2030 by pulling ANZACs out of service when construction of their replacements hasn't even begun. Not to mention that the planned further upgrade of the ANZACs is scrapped.
Clearly the government still believes we have at least a ten year lead time before we face a significant threat!

Agree

Too much in this Review for down the track.
If the current government can lock in before the next election their choice for the Tier two vessel than we will have at least some substance go forward.
As to any capability enhancement for this decade , I'm not so convinced.

Retiring a couple of ANZACs early reminds me of getting rid of the last two FFGs.

It's the next seven years that need covering.
Beggers can't be choosers.
Whatever the age and limitations ANZAC still have something to offer.
Whatever limitations the Arafura Class have, they still have something to offer. Maybe not 12 but eight would of been a good choice complete with UAVs.
Better Constabulary vessel ECape or OPV?
One OPV to two Capes makes for a nice flotilla to cover a Maritime zone.

Looking at you PNG and where you are heading.

Cheers S

 

[Meriv90]

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.

CSC 15 tier 1 frigates and the Italo-French consortium offered the exactly same deal you are looking for.
First 3 Ships built abroad and the next in Canada.

And the FFG-62 objective was to deescalate design risk so even designing their own they would have risked failing again into something like Zumwalts or LCS.

 

[Meriv90]

I'm very curious why Babcock didn't make it to the selection, considering that also Indonesia is adopting them you could have got quite the economy of scale.

 

[knightrider4]

Well at least they have ditched the ridiculous corvette scenario. The reduction in large fleet units with the corresponding high end sensor and combat system loadout is concerning. Interesting to see where this optionally manned vessel fares we will see. So far off into never never land the current government won't have to worry about it. Does make me wonder why it took so long to release the review. Would love to have a look at the classified version.

 

[hauritz]

Agree

Too much in this Review for down the track.
If the current government can lock in before the next election their choice for the Tier two vessel than we will have at least some substance go forward.
As to any capability enhancement for this decade , I'm not so convinced.

Retiring a couple of ANZACs early reminds me of getting rid of the last two FFGs.

It's the next seven years that need covering.
Beggers can't be choosers.
Whatever the age and limitations ANZAC still have something to offer.
Whatever limitations the Arafura Class have, they still have something to offer. Maybe not 12 but eight would of been a good choice complete with UAVs.
Better Constabulary vessel ECape or OPV?
One OPV to two Capes makes for a nice flotilla to cover a Maritime zone.

Looking at you PNG and where you are heading.

Cheers S

I suspect the winner of the GP frigate contest will be announced before the next election. That is due before September next year.

I am curious about the uncrewed vessels as well since they don’t actually exist. Austal is working on a number of concepts as is the US. It will be a long time before we see these in service.

Also the Hunter program seems to have been slowed down. At one stage they were talking about an in service date of 2031/32. Now it is out to 2034. Getting those 11 GP frigates into service as quickly as possible is now pretty vital since I can’t see the ANZACs soldiering on beyond the mid thirties.

 

[ngatimozart]

The findings of the Australian govt Independent Analysis of Navy’s Surface Combatant Fleet Capability were released on Tuesday 20th February 2024 as the RAN Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet.

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

Full Release Announcement (Video)


Since WW2 the RAN has operated a fleet of:
- Three Tribal Class DD (1942 - 1969).
- Two Battle Class DDG (1950 - 1974).
- Three Daring Class DD (1957 - 1986).
- Three Perth Class DDG (1965 - 2001).
- Three Hobart Class DDG (2017 - present)
- Eight Group 1 River Class FF (1944 - 1972).
- Four Group 2 River Class FF (1944 - 1972).
- Six River Class (Leander) DD (1961 - 1998).
- Six Adelaide Class FFG (1980 - 2019).
- Eight Anzac Class FFH (1996 - present). Note: HMAS Anzac, the first of class, is to be decommissioned this year.
Source. Yes, it's Wikipedia.

It can be seen that as a general rule the RAN has operated 3 - 6 destroyers and 8 - 12 frigates until the 1990s. That has given them anywhere between a 11 - 18 surface combat force in service at any time. The current surface combat fleet force of 11 ships (soon to be 10) is the lowest it has been since before WW2.

The Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet announced above brings the surface combat fleet up to 25 when it is fully implemented, and it introduces a new capability to the fleet in the Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs) with each bring 32 VLS tubes to the fleet for a total of 192 VLS tubes. It should be noted that whilst ships numbers and classes are important, at the end of the day it is the total number of VLS tubes a navy has that finally counts. This new fleet will be comprised of:

• Three upgraded Hobart class destroyers.
• Six Hunter class frigates.
• 11 new general purpose frigates (progressively replacing the six remaining Anzac class frigates)
• Six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs),

giving the RAN a lethal surface combat force, comprising of a good mix of capabilities with a high number of Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. Whilst tonnage and ship numbers are important, the VLS cell numbers are the best metric for measuring a navy’s firepower and capability.

The patrol frigates have been short listed to:

• German MEKO A-200 (another source).
• Japanese Mogami 30FFM (another source).
• South Korean Daegu class.
• FFX Batch II
• Batch III
• Spanish Navantia ALFA3000

Of these four types, I think that the outstanding one is the MEKO A-200 Class, followed by the Mogami Class. Both are currently in service with other navies. The Daegu FFX Batch II is also in service with another navy, but at present the Batch III is a paper design. IMHO the Navantia ALFA 3000 is a paper design, too small for Indo-Pacific oceans, and the design appears cramped with not a lot of room for future upgrades. It might work for European and Mediterranean navies who don't venture far from home, but one look at a map of the Pacific Ocean illustrates the distances involved. The fact that it isn’t in service with any navy significantly increases the risk. Besides Navantia didn’t come through the Hobart DDG build with flying colours; it left a lot to be desired.

I like the Mogami because it's definitely designed for the future, and such an acquisition would be diplomatically a very good move, if Australia wants to increase and deepen defence ties with Japan. However, I think that the MEKO A-200 would be a better choice because of the four types I think that the MEKO A-200 is the least risky design. The original Anzac class is an original MEKO 200 design, so the RAN already has experience of that design. The Anzac Class build was successful and came in under budget and within time.

If in the future, the RAN wants to have something with more teeth than an Arafura Class OPV or Enhanced Cape Class Patrol Boat, but doesn't want a frigate, it could look at the MEKO A-100 design which is a corvette having synergies / commonality / compatibility with the A-200 design. It too is in service with other navies.

The RAN should seriously consider introducing a modular system across all of its platforms in order to increase the operational capabilities across the fleet. One such system is the SH Defence SH CUBE that is now on Danish warships, is being included in the Babcocks AH140 with the RN selecting it for its Type 31 frigates, and Navantia have signed up for it.

It was also announced that the RAN is replacing its Harpoon missile capability with the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). It was also announced that it is acquiring the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) for use on the Hobart Class DDG and the Hunter Class FFG.

I am aware that the MEKO A-200 can carry 32 VLS cells, however they are Sylver VLS and not the MK-41 VLS. I suspect that the MK-41 VLS for the patrol frigate will be most likely 24, because 32 could be a squeeze and 16 is definitely not enough in the modern environment. I also suspect that the most cells, if not all, will be tactical length rather than strike length. However, if the RAN intend using the likes of SM-3, SM-6, VLA, or LRASM on these frigates some strike length cells would have to be included. I think that 16 NSM will be the fit out as well.

Experience from the Russo Ukraine War, and the current Houthi attacks against shipping in the Red Sea, illustrates the necessity of the likes of 30mm auto cannon with air burst ammunition, and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities being the best defence against Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USV). It isn’t very cost effective to use a $5 million missile to shoot down a $1,000 UAV or USV. To this end I believe that Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) gun armament should also be substantially increased on all RAN ships, being a mix of Close In Weapons System (CIWS) and auto cannon with a minimum calibre of 30mm. I think that on the Hobart, Hunter and Patrol Frigate Classes, a minimum of two 30 (+) mm autocannon per side, two CIWS, and a robust EW capability are required.

Finally, some Australians will bemoan the Euro contenders, saying that they are the cause of acquisition problems. I strongly dispute that and suggest that the major cause of problems you have had with Euro defence acquisitions, is in fact based in Canberra not in Europe. I believe that your whole acquisition system is dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. I saw Mark Shoebridge of Strategic Analysis this morning saying that the biggest problem with Australian defence acquisitions is the Defence Department itself. You may not like the message, but evidence over the years supports this. Is the inability to admit to, and taking ownership of, errors becoming part of the Australian psyche now? I hope it isn't.

Overall, I believe that if sufficiently funded, this plan is a good plan for the RAN. It addresses many of the short comings of the current fleet. Whilst same may think that only acquiring six Hunter Class FFG, eleven Patrol Frigates are a significant increase in capability. Quantity has a quality of its own, and we don’t yet know how many VLS cells the patrol frigates will have.

 

[H_K]

“Four platforms have been identified by the independent analysis as exemplars to form the basis of a selection process for this new generalpurpose 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

The use of the word “exemplars” is interesting. I take that to mean that while 4 designs have been identified as a good fit, based most likely on their attributes on paper, the door may not be closed to other designs with similar characteristics.

Indeed, it seems very unlikely that such a pre-selection could be made at this stage in the process, without extensive discussions with industry and a proper RFI process.

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

"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"

Interesting that this does not exactly imply much AAW capability…

 

[Redlands18]

The use of the word “exemplars” is interesting. I take that to mean that while 4 designs have been identified as a good fit, based most likely on their attributes on paper, the door may not be closed to other designs with similar characteristics.

Indeed, it seems very unlikely that such a pre-selection could be made at this stage in the process, without extensive discussions with industry and a proper RFI process.



Interesting that this does not exactly imply much AAW capability…

ALPHA-3000-CORVETTE.pdf (navantia.com.au)
I am far from convinced that the list of ships provided is anything more than what they sound like, examples of designs the RAN should be looking at.
Marles at the presser yesterday, made it clear, no Corvettes and Navantia themselves rate the Alpha 3000 as a Corvette.
Lets look at the contenders.
New FFM 142m and 6200t
Mogami 133m and 5500t
A200 121m and 3700t
Daegu Batch II 122m and 3700t
Daegu Batch III(Chungnam) 129m and 4300t
Alpha 3000 104m and 3000t
The Alpha 3000 is clearly not in the same size and capability class as the others. I think Navantia will try to push the Alpha 5000 and try to convince the RAN that they can match the timeline.

 

[BPFP]

The use of the word “exemplars” is interesting. I take that to mean that while 4 designs have been identified as a good fit, based most likely on their attributes on paper, the door may not be closed to other designs with similar characteristics.

Indeed, it seems very unlikely that such a pre-selection could be made at this stage in the process, without extensive discussions with industry and a proper RFI process.



Interesting that this does not exactly imply much AAW capability…

Based on the projected fleet missile loadout (700), and on some of these exemplar classes, the government appears to have settled on 16 x Mk41 as the Tier 2 capacity - hardly the "missile packed ships" that the press continually mentions. Hopefully the use of the term exemplars allows the choice of something like the Meko A210 which is slightly longer than the A200 but still under 5k tonnes, and which has a dense weapons to displacement ratio as far as I can see. I suspect they'll be budget focussed, though, and we'll see a 16 Mk41 cell selection.

Cash uplift in the forward estimates very limited and the smallest they could get away with.

Horrified at the further Hunter cost blowout, and the fact they have not been able to speed up the first ship. Surprised they did not mention additional midship cells for ships 3-6, but understandably they are probably shocked at cost and have low confidence in BAE to deliver that potential change on budget.

Pleased to see a fixed date for commencing the next AWD class planning.

Susepct a future coalition govt will attempt to differentiate itself by going back up to 12 x Tier 1, however done.

 

[Reptilia]

The findings of the Australian govt Independent Analysis of Navy’s Surface Combatant Fleet Capability were released on Tuesday 20th February 2024 as the RAN Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet.

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

Full Release Announcement (Video)


Since WW2 the RAN has operated a fleet of:
- Three Tribal Class DD (1942 - 1969).
- Two Battle Class DDG (1950 - 1974).
- Three Daring Class DD (1957 - 1986).
- Three Perth Class DDG (1965 - 2001).
- Three Hobart Class DDG (2017 - present)
- Eight Group 1 River Class FF (1944 - 1972).
- Four Group 2 River Class FF (1944 - 1972).
- Six River Class (Leander) DD (1961 - 1998).
- Six Adelaide Class FFG (1980 - 2019).
- Eight Anzac Class FFH (1996 - present). Note: HMAS Anzac, the first of class, is to be decommissioned this year.
Source. Yes, it's Wikipedia.

It can be seen that as a general rule the RAN has operated 3 - 6 destroyers and 8 - 12 frigates until the 1990s. That has given them anywhere between a 11 - 18 surface combat force in service at any time. The current surface combat fleet force of 11 ships (soon to be 10) is the lowest it has been since before WW2.

The Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet announced above brings the surface combat fleet up to 25 when it is fully implemented, and it introduces a new capability to the fleet in the Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs) with each bring 32 VLS tubes to the fleet for a total of 192 VLS tubes. It should be noted that whilst ships numbers and classes are important, at the end of the day it is the total number of VLS tubes a navy has that finally counts. This new fleet will be comprised of:

• Three upgraded Hobart class destroyers.
• Six Hunter class frigates.
• 11 new general purpose frigates (progressively replacing the six remaining Anzac class frigates)
• Six new Large Optionally Crewed Surface Vessels (LOSVs),

giving the RAN a lethal surface combat force, comprising of a good mix of capabilities with a high number of Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells. Whilst tonnage and ship numbers are important, the VLS cell numbers are the best metric for measuring a navy’s firepower and capability.

The patrol frigates have been short listed to:

• German MEKO A-200 (another source).
• Japanese Mogami 30FFM (another source).
• South Korean Daegu class.
• FFX Batch II
• Batch III
• Spanish Navantia ALFA3000

Of these four types, I think that the outstanding one is the MEKO A-200 Class, followed by the Mogami Class. Both are currently in service with other navies. The Daegu FFX Batch II is also in service with another navy, but at present the Batch III is a paper design. IMHO the Navantia ALFA 3000 is a paper design, too small for Indo-Pacific oceans, and the design appears cramped with not a lot of room for future upgrades. It might work for European and Mediterranean navies who don't venture far from home, but one look at a map of the Pacific Ocean illustrates the distances involved. The fact that it isn’t in service with any navy significantly increases the risk. Besides Navantia didn’t come through the Hobart DDG build with flying colours; it left a lot to be desired.

I like the Mogami because it's definitely designed for the future, and such an acquisition would be diplomatically a very good move, if Australia wants to increase and deepen defence ties with Japan. However, I think that the MEKO A-200 would be a better choice because of the four types I think that the MEKO A-200 is the least risky design. The original Anzac class is an original MEKO 200 design, so the RAN already has experience of that design. The Anzac Class build was successful and came in under budget and within time.

If in the future, the RAN wants to have something with more teeth than an Arafura Class OPV or Enhanced Cape Class Patrol Boat, but doesn't want a frigate, it could look at the MEKO A-100 design which is a corvette having synergies / commonality / compatibility with the A-200 design. It too is in service with other navies.

The RAN should seriously consider introducing a modular system across all of its platforms in order to increase the operational capabilities across the fleet. One such system is the SH Defence SH CUBE that is now on Danish warships, is being included in the Babcocks AH140 with the RN selecting it for its Type 31 frigates, and Navantia have signed up for it.

It was also announced that the RAN is replacing its Harpoon missile capability with the Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile (NSM). It was also announced that it is acquiring the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) for use on the Hobart Class DDG and the Hunter Class FFG.

I am aware that the MEKO A-200 can carry 32 VLS cells, however they are Sylver VLS and not the MK-41 VLS. I suspect that the MK-41 VLS for the patrol frigate will be most likely 24, because 32 could be a squeeze and 16 is definitely not enough in the modern environment. I also suspect that the most cells, if not all, will be tactical length rather than strike length. However, if the RAN intend using the likes of SM-3, SM-6, VLA, or LRASM on these frigates some strike length cells would have to be included. I think that 16 NSM will be the fit out as well.

Experience from the Russo Ukraine War, and the current Houthi attacks against shipping in the Red Sea, illustrates the necessity of the likes of 30mm auto cannon with air burst ammunition, and Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities being the best defence against Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAV) and Uncrewed Surface Vessels (USV). It isn’t very cost effective to use a $5 million missile to shoot down a $1,000 UAV or USV. To this end I believe that Anti Aircraft Artillery (AAA) gun armament should also be substantially increased on all RAN ships, being a mix of Close In Weapons System (CIWS) and auto cannon with a minimum calibre of 30mm. I think that on the Hobart, Hunter and Patrol Frigate Classes, a minimum of two 30 (+) mm autocannon per side, two CIWS, and a robust EW capability are required.

Finally, some Australians will bemoan the Euro contenders, saying that they are the cause of acquisition problems. I strongly dispute that and suggest that the major cause of problems you have had with Euro defence acquisitions, is in fact based in Canberra not in Europe. I believe that your whole acquisition system is dysfunctional and not fit for purpose. I saw Mark Shoebridge of Strategic Analysis this morning saying that the biggest problem with Australian defence acquisitions is the Defence Department itself. You may not like the message, but evidence over the years supports this. Is the inability to admit to, and taking ownership of, errors becoming part of the Australian psyche now? I hope it isn't.

Overall, I believe that if sufficiently funded, this plan is a good plan for the RAN. It addresses many of the short comings of the current fleet. Whilst same may think that only acquiring six Hunter Class FFG, eleven Patrol Frigates are a significant increase in capability. Quantity has a quality of its own, and we don’t yet know how many VLS cells the patrol frigates will have.

Is the Batch III(Chungnam) really a paper design? If it was I doubt the RAN(my bad, independent review team) would have put it on the list. It was launched about 8 months ago and in the final stages of fit out with the FOC in service late this year. RAN decision will be made in 2025.
The 109m Tasman class also has just a 5m extension on the 104m Saudi (Avante 2200) - Al Jubail class in which the last of 5 ships will be delivered this month.
A200 and Mogami both better options imo.

We don’t see these on the list maybe because
Alpha 5000 - Paper design
F110 - 1.5-2 years away + too big to be lifted Darwin/Cairns
MEKO A210 - Paper design
FFX Batch IV - Paper design
FFM - 3-3.5 years away + too big to be lifted Darwin/Cairns
A140 - Overseas build would be too late + too big to be lifted Darwin/Cairns
Those designs that made the list exist + can be lifted and maintained at our northern bases + potentially homeported.