Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[spoz]

The RAN didn’t put it in the list; the “independent review” and the Government did. The only insight we have into what the RAN thinks is the very neutral statements attributed to CN in the release presser.

I agree the use of the word “exemplar” is indeed an interesting one, and it was repeated by Marles. Suspect that does mean the door is not closed on others.

Ngatimozart is generally right, in approach terms the RAN has since WW2 consisted of tier 1 and tier 2 combatants; though the numbers have not approached what is now proposed since the war. So in some ways it is back to the future. And, in my view, the Kiwis should certainly jump onboard with whatever ends up being the tier 2, joining in the foreign production line a la Anzac. Again, that would be back to the future; they have run whatever our tier 2 was as their main combatants since the war (standfast the token improved Didos they ran as their flagship up to the late 60s).

 

[Redlands18]

Is the Batch III(Chungnam) really a paper design? If it was I doubt the RAN 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.

South Korea Green Lights FFX Batch IV Frigate Program for ROK Navy - Naval News
The follow-on Daegu batch IV is the paper design, and it will not be in the mix for the RAN. The inverted bow is certainly gaining in popularity, first the US, then France now ROK and Germany.
Even the Tasman version of the Alpha 3000 at 109m is giving away a fair bit.

 

[Reptilia]

South Korea Green Lights FFX Batch IV Frigate Program for ROK Navy - Naval News
The follow-on Daegu batch IV is the paper design, and it will not be in the mix for the RAN. The inverted bow is certainly gaining in popularity, first the US, then France now ROK and Germany.
Even the Tasman version of the Alpha 3000 at 109m is giving away a fair bit.

The Chungnam(III) is the follow on of the Daegu(II), paper design /model batch IV is the follow on of the Chungnam(III).

 

[Armchair]

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.

Capability acquisition for the RAAF seems pretty good. Same department, also Australian. Admittedly they tend to acquire mainly US systems.
i don’t disagree there are big problems but most of the naval ones seem to revolve around governments changing plans.

 

[SammyC]

I made myself a strong black coffee and read the Independent Analysis of Navy's Surface Combatant Fleet from front to back. I took the following key items.

• Large Optionally Crew Surface Vessels (LOCSVs) are intended for pairing with Hunters and Hobarts only, not Tier 2s. (This acronym needs some work, it's terrible).
• LOCSVs are intended for strike, so I assume this means primarily an NSM/Tomahawk platform, not ESSM/SM2/3/6.
• Tier 2s optimised for ASW, with a strike capability (again assume NSM/Tomahawk) and local/point defence (ESSM/CIWS)
• ANZAC Transcap was recommended, pending the timeline for Tier 2 acquisition. This was the only recommendation rejected by the Government.
• OPVs are inefficient for constabulary duties, and are not suited to mine warfare or survey work. Government to seek a suitable function for them.
• Patrol fleet should be consolidated around the Evolved Cape Class
• Henderson shipbuilding to be consolidated, using the strategic partnership created with Austal. Not a lot of confidence that it is ready for a Tier 2 build.

Also after watching Marles on 730 Report last night, I added the following key points.

• Should have at least four of the Tier 2s in service by 2034, so suggests one a year from 2030.
• LOCSVs will be (at least initially) staffed.
• Tier 2 will align with an already proven design, and an available production line for fast and low risk delivery.

My take aways:

• Luerrsen are the single biggest looser. OPV order cut in half and excluded from the Tier 2 program. They really pissed off someone.
• No big missile ships, instead it doubles down on the small/medium (16/32/48) VLS style rather than the larger (96/112) type platforms. Surely this will silence the “must have Burkes” choir.
• I find it interesting that after all the noise about having too many ASW platforms with the Hunters, and that ships are no good for this function, the Tier 2 is to be optimised for ASW.
• I find it surprising that the AAW capability for the Tier 2s has been deprioritised to a point defence only. I would have thought that an SM2 fit would have been important in the missile defence age. I feel this goes against the commentary of getting ships with more missiles, and is a weakness if they are to operate alone.
• If the Tier 2s are to have a strike capability, then they will need the deeper strike rather than tactical cells and it suggest a larger magazine. I can’t see a 16 cell VLS working for a useful Tomahawk loadout when at minimum 8 of the VLS will be used for ESSM. Particularly when they will not be paired with LOCSVs. Seems to suggest ships with 24/32 cell VLS would be at an advantage with a loadout of 32 ESSM and 16/24 Tomahawks.
• No plan presented for the minehunter and survey boat replacement. Interesting to see what happens here.
• No information on supply ship requirements for a fleet of this size. I would have thought the current two oilers would be stretched to support a fleet of 26 ships. Maybe this review comes later, this was a combatant review after all.
• No confirmation that the Hunter platform will be picked up for future AAW requirements. Just a possibility among other options, and as a replacement rather than a complement to the Hobarts. I had expected more certainty that this would be anointed and accelerated in build. It means that the force structure will be limited to three specialised AAW hulls for the long term. Also a bit damming for BAE.
• Initially crewing the LOCSVs removes the autonomous technology risk, however I assume this would be limited to a basic bridge team, not a full complement (say 20 people).
• Tier 2 selection is prioritised around a platform already in the water with a hot production line with capacity now. It will be interesting to see the level of customisation. For instance will the seafar radar package and Saab 9LV be mandated. Will they have aegis/CEC which I thought was necessary for Tomahawks. The MEKO option seems to have the advantage here.
• I am also surprised that the Arrowhead was excluded from the list of suitable platforms. Perhaps this is due to Babcock not having sufficient production capacity to meet delivery timeframes. Maybe it is not considered a suitably quiet platform for ASW, or maybe it is too expensive in comparison to the others. I can’t imagine Babcock will take this lying down.
• The Henderson consolidation picture is uncertain. The Government clearly favours Austal who have the people and skills, however Civmec has the infrastructure. The Austal buildings are nowhere near big enough to construct frigates in. There also remains the question of additional docking capability which remains unanswered.
• Henderson does however seem to get a bigger slice of the shipbuilding pie than Osborne (Tier 2s, LOCSVs, heavy transports, and patrol boats). Osborne keeps the Hunters and Subs and gets a promise of a future AAW build.

Lastly the $20 billion unfunded hole in the Hunter program seems to have been buried in all the other news. What on earth was this and how did that get through to this stage of the project unnoticed. Does it mean that we will still need to pay $45 billion or more for the six ships.

 

[Armchair]

Large Optionally Crew Surface Vessels (LOCSVs) are intended for pairing with Hunters and Hobarts only, not Tier 2s. (This acronym needs some work, it's terrible).

• LOCSVs are intended for strike, so I assume this means primarily an NSM/Tomahawk platform, not ESSM/SM2/3/6

As you explain below the Tier 2s won’t really have a great capacity to defend other ships (including LOCSVs).
LOCSVs would presumably add magazine depth to task forces protected by at least one ship with Aegis

• No big missile ships, instead it doubles down on the small/medium (16/32/48) VLS style rather than the larger (96/112) type platforms. Surely this will silence the “must have Burkes” choir.

On the contrary I expect a decade of noisy debate in the lead up to the DDG decision in the mid 30s.

Lastly the $20 billion unfunded hole in the Hunter program seems to have been buried in all the other news. What on earth was this and how did that get through to this stage of the project unnoticed. Does it mean that we will still need to pay $45 billion or more for the six ships.

It is difficult to reconcile with the surprisingly small 10 year cost of $11bn (I guess a lot comes from cuts to Army programs) but presumably some of that $45bn (esp. sustainment) will now be ascribed to the future (uncosted) DDG replacement.

 

[Redlands18]

As you explain below the Tier 2s won’t really have a great capacity to defend other ships (including LOCSVs).
LOCSVs would presumably add magazine depth to task forces protected by at least one ship with Aegis


On the contrary I expect a decade of noisy debate in the lead up to the DDG decision in the mid 30s.



It is difficult to reconcile with the surprisingly small 10 year cost of $11bn (I guess a lot comes from cuts to Army programs) but presumably some of that $45bn (esp. sustainment) will now be ascribed to the future (uncosted) DDG replacement.

Evolved Seasparrow Missile (ESSM) | Missile Threat (csis.org)
I wouldn't be writing off the area AD capability of any ship that is carrying up to 64 ESSM Blk 2 with a range of 50km and its own active illuminator.

 

[Lolcake]

The mogami/FFM surely is a very attractive option with its extremely low crewing requirements (90). Pretty amazing how the larger FFM also has the same crewing requirement. This is already a massive issue. Might "owe" the Japs a little after the Soryu debacle.

 

[Reptilia]

The mogami/FFM surely is a very attractive option with its extremely low crewing requirements (90). Pretty amazing how the larger FFM also has the same crewing requirement. This is already a massive issue. Might "owe" the Japs a little after the Soryu debacle.

For sure, 16cell Mogami or a 32cell FFM, both still significantly less crew than the meko a200(120), alpha 3000(102), daegu(140), chungnam(120)

 

[Redlands18]

The mogami/FFM surely is a very attractive option with its extremely low crewing requirements (90). Pretty amazing how the larger FFM also has the same crewing requirement. This is already a massive issue. Might "owe" the Japs a little after the Soryu debacle.

The larger FFM has been optimised for AAW compared to the Mogami though and the requirement for the GP Frigate is primarily ASW.
10 years is a very long time in politics and everyone involved in the subs have long since moved on.

 

[hauritz]

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.

To be honest my favourite ship to replace the Anzacs would be the not-Navantia frigate.

Meko is interesting although they specify it is the A200 and not the A210. Sounds like they don’t want paper ships. The latest version is the Egyptian Al-Aziz class. Same size as the ANZACs, proven design and we already know how to Australianise it. It looks like the lowest risk option and to be honest that is a huge plus from me.

Only issue I have with the MEKO A200 is its size. The ANZAC is considered too small and while I appreciate that the design has evolved since the 1990s I do think size counts which brings me to the Mogami. Probably a good political move to buy from Japan as well. While I think the MEKO might be a more low risk option for Australia, the extra size and the mere fact it is a later design has a lot of appeal for me.

I haven’t really looked into the Daegu Batch 2 or 3 but generally I am pretty impressed with the ships built by Korea. I prefer the Batch 3 Chungnam to Daegu but I would rank them both below the Mogami or Meko.

The Alpha 3000 has a somewhat papery feel about it as well. The Indo Pacific mockup really looked more like a concept model than anything else. Considerably larger than the reference model which makes me wonder about what sort of growth margins remain. Best to just give it the flick.

 

[Redlands18]

To be honest my favourite ship to replace the Anzacs would be the not-Navantia frigate.

Meko is interesting although they specify it is the A200 and not the A210. Sounds like they don’t want paper ships. The latest version is the Egyptian Al-Aziz class. Same size as the ANZACs, proven design and we already know how to Australianise it. It looks like the lowest risk option and to be honest that is a huge plus from me.

Only issue I have with the MEKO A200 is its size. The ANZAC is considered too small and while I appreciate that the design has evolved since the 1990s I do think size counts which brings me to the Mogami. Probably a good political move to buy from Japan as well. While I think the MEKO might be a more low risk option for Australia, the extra size and the mere fact it is a later design has a lot of appeal for me.

I haven’t really looked into the Daegu Batch 2 or 3 but generally I am pretty impressed with the ships built by Korea. I prefer the Batch 3 Chungnam to Daegu but I would rank them both below the Mogami or Meko.

The Alpha 3000 has a somewhat papery feel about it as well. The Indo Pacific mockup really looked more like a concept model than anything else. Considerably larger than the reference model which makes me wonder about what sort of growth margins remain. Best to just give it the flick.

The biggest problem with the Anzacs is they made up too big a percentage of the fleet, if we had got 6 Hobarts to serve alongside the Anzacs than the size of the Anzacs doesn't stand out, they were meant to be an adjunct to a larger more capable DDG/FFG, not form the backbone of the fleet. 11 Meko A200s alongside 3 DDGs and 6 Hunters makes a far more balanced fleet.

The Alpha 3000 Tasman class is an enlarged version of the Alpha 3000 being built for Saudi Arabia, 5m longer. So they haven't been built.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The larger FFM has been optimised for AAW compared to the Mogami though and the requirement for the GP Frigate is primarily ASW.
10 years is a very long time in politics and everyone involved in the subs have long since moved on.

The FFM has improved ASW capabilities over the Mogami, which was a ASW frigate. They have improved all aspects of the Mogami with the FFM. ASW, Air, endurance, operations etc. The FFM has a hull mounted sonar, towed array, MH60R capability, torpedos and support for unmanned and USV. The FFM isn't just a Air warfare only version that drops all other capabilities.

With the same MT30 as the Hunter class (but half the crew of either the Hunter or the Anzacs!), and almost the same size as a Hobart class dimensionally. But with one third the crew requirement of a Hobart.

From Rocks to Tigers: advocating for Japan’s 30FFM frigate acquisition | The Australian Naval Institute

navalinstitute.com.au

They also have a Batch III in the works.
TBH it would not surprise me if the 3rd onward of the Hunters carried 64+ VLS.

Will they have aegis/CEC which I thought was necessary for Tomahawks.

Other platforms can fire tomahawks. Submarines (US/UK) don't have Aegis, fire Tomahawk. There was also a ground launched version. Historically, a specific console is generally required (with a paper printer!), but these days a multi function consoles can probably do the job. Its a big missile, so historically, only big platforms carried, it, also there was a nuclear version, so you know, serious business. Spurance destroyers and the Cruisers were armed with them.

If we ended up with 11x FFM at 6200t with 32 VLS, firing SM-6 and ESSM and TLAM, with NSM, a 5", capable embarking a MH60R or multiple large drones, would any one be unhappy?

My concern with the FFM isn't its capability. Its that because its so loaded and so big, it will be expensive. 11x32 almost triples the RAN's current VLS capability alone. I doubt we will be getting an additional 12 MH60Rs either.. MT30's are great, but they aren't free. These are big expensive ships. We are a long way from a OPV90..

I am also surprised that the Arrowhead was excluded from the list of suitable platforms. Perhaps this is due to Babcock not having sufficient production capacity to meet delivery timeframes. Maybe it is not considered a suitably quiet platform for ASW, or maybe it is too expensive in comparison to the others. I can’t imagine Babcock will take this lying down.

Does Babcock have the engineering footprint and capability to make this happen at an accelerated rate? Not being included isn't a slight on the design, or on Babcocks capability. But Babcock isn't Mitsubishi, its not BAE. Current A140 builds tend to spec lighter fitout, which means a RAN A140 build might take too long to spec. Babcock is pretty busy, we are talking about an existing design and supply chain and taking it to war, now.

Navantia on the other hand, has a whole lot of projects and builds ending or winding down. The Spanish government is looking into a valley of death and possibly the implosion of its ship building work force and possibly the break down of the Spanish state when combined with other issues. They have the backing of the entire Spanish state. You want a AOR? Navantia will get one for your TODAY, with crew. You want a Destroyer? Today, with crew. It just takes money. Your having problems with the Germans on boxer orders? or the EU FTA? Spain can apply pressure at a state level.

The Japanese are equally motivated, as are the Koreans, and particularly when you put the two of them together. You could cross shop them all day with each other. Both have interesting products, and more going on around them.

This is less of a commercial project, this is the action of states. The small guys probably won't get much of a look in. Its a competition between the socialist state enterprise and Navy of Spain, Japan Inc, Korea Inc and maybe the federated German military industrial complex.

 

[Reptilia]

The FFM has improved ASW capabilities over the Mogami, which was a ASW frigate. They have improved all aspects of the Mogami with the FFM. ASW, Air, endurance, operations etc. The FFM has a hull mounted sonar, towed array, MH60R capability, torpedos and support for unmanned and USV. The FFM isn't just a Air warfare only version that drops all other capabilities.

With the same MT30 as the Hunter class (but half the crew of either the Hunter or the Anzacs!), and almost the same size as a Hobart class dimensionally. But with one third the crew requirement of a Hobart.

From Rocks to Tigers: advocating for Japan’s 30FFM frigate acquisition | The Australian Naval Institute

navalinstitute.com.au

They also have a Batch III in the works.
TBH it would not surprise me if the 3rd onward of the Hunters carried 64+ VLS.


Other platforms can fire tomahawks. Submarines (US/UK) don't have Aegis, fire Tomahawk. There was also a ground launched version. Historically, a specific console is generally required (with a paper printer!), but these days a multi function consoles can probably do the job. Its a big missile, so historically, only big platforms carried, it, also there was a nuclear version, so you know, serious business. Spurance destroyers and the Cruisers were armed with them.

If we ended up with 11x FFM at 6200t with 32 VLS, firing SM-6 and ESSM and TLAM, with NSM, a 5", capable embarking a MH60R or multiple large drones, would any one be unhappy?

My concern with the FFM isn't its capability. Its that because its so loaded and so big, it will be expensive. 11x32 almost triples the RAN's current VLS capability alone. I doubt we will be getting an additional 12 MH60Rs either.. MT30's are great, but they aren't free. These are big expensive ships. We are a long way from a OPV90..


Does Babcock have the engineering footprint and capability to make this happen at an accelerated rate? Not being included isn't a slight on the design, or on Babcocks capability. But Babcock isn't Mitsubishi, its not BAE. Current A140 builds tend to spec lighter fitout, which means a RAN A140 build might take too long to spec. Babcock is pretty busy, we are talking about an existing design and supply chain and taking it to war, now.

Navantia on the other hand, has a whole lot of projects and builds ending or winding down. The Spanish government is looking into a valley of death and possibly the implosion of its ship building work force and possibly the break down of the Spanish state when combined with other issues. They have the backing of the entire Spanish state. You want a AOR? Navantia will get one for your TODAY, with crew. You want a Destroyer? Today, with crew. It just takes money. Your having problems with the Germans on boxer orders? or the EU FTA? Spain can apply pressure at a state level.

The Japanese are equally motivated, as are the Koreans, and particularly when you put the two of them together. You could cross shop them all day with each other. Both have interesting products, and more going on around them.

This is less of a commercial project, this is the action of states. The small guys probably won't get much of a look in. Its a competition between the socialist state enterprise and Navy of Spain, Japan Inc, Korea Inc and maybe the federated German military industrial complex.

One has to wonder if an order is placed in 2025 for the Mogami class and cut steel happens in 2026, japan could easily delivery us all 3 before the end of the decade at the rate they build them(even with other ships built inbetween). So why does the government announce just 1 frigate at the end of the decade? Have they already chosen?
11 new FFM though, how much? if the cost of 1 Mogami is below 769 million AUD as it states(include 16 cells?), doesn’t seem likely the new ffm is feasible unless more hulls are built in Japan than in Henderson.
I know last year navantia offered the corvettes for 600 million built in Spain, 800 million built in Australia.

 

[Redlands18]

One has to wonder if an order is placed in 2025 for the Mogami class and cut steel happens in 2026, japan could easily delivery us all 3 before the end of the decade at the rate they build them(even with other ships built inbetween). So why does the government announce just 1 frigate at the end of the decade? Have they already chosen?
11 new FFM though, how much? if the cost of 1 Mogami is below 769 million AUD as it states(include 16 cells?), doesn’t seem likely the new ffm is feasible unless more hulls are built in Japan than in Henderson.
I know last year navantia offered the corvettes for 600 million built in Spain, 800 million built in Australia.

But don't forget that entire $769m goes into the Japanese economy and to the Japanese Government in Taxes. Up front cost for a Mogami built in Australia may be a lot more but building 8 Frigates in Australia means, Billions goes into the Australian economy, to the Australian government in taxes, thousands of Australians get long term employment directly, 10s of thousands indirectly.

 

[Going Boeing]

• Tier 2 selection is prioritised around a platform already in the water with a hot production line with capacity now. It will be interesting to see the level of customisation. For instance will the seafar radar package and Saab 9LV be mandated. Will they have aegis/CEC which I thought was necessary for Tomahawks. The MEKO option seems to have the advantage here.

Thanks for the great precis SammyC. I am surprised that there hasn’t been more discussion about the potential Australianisation of the proposed GP Frigates. I would assume that the RAN would like maximum commonality with its other vessels to minimise training, maintenance and logistics but, any changes from the OE configuration come at a cost in dollars and time - something that we don’t have.

The configuration of CEAFAR radars & SAAB 9LV is mature in the ANZAC class but, I understand that installing it in any of the types under consideration would require design time for space, power & cooling. If it can be done in reasonable time & cost, then this would give the RAN the most suitable configuration.

 

[StingrayOZ]

One has to wonder if an order is placed in 2025 for the Mogami class and cut steel happens in 2026, japan could easily delivery us all 3 before the end of the decade at the rate they build them(even with other ships built inbetween). So why does the government announce just 1 frigate at the end of the decade? Have they already chosen?

I would expect a fairly open set of criteria than more than one can meet.

Its doesn't have to be Japan, and if there is no plan B, then when Japan gets wiped out by the "second impact" or mechzilla, or they put in the price and we have to sell Victoria, we have options.

This can't be a captains pick with no other options even benchmarked or looked at. Look at the SH decision, or the F-35 decision, both of which are fairly singular in the outcome, we still had people saying why didn't we even consider the F-22, or the F-15 or the Eurofighter or revised Mega stealth F-111's. You make a list, you make it public, you can then eliminate options, like the F-22, it wasn't even on the table to be considered and the industry building it was already drying up.

There are four good, capable, realistic ships listed. Yes, something like that. In fact Australia may want to spec specifically, equipment from any of those four projects in what ever it builds. So its looking at those supply chains across those as well as the ship dimensions, capacities etc.

The ships are just the outcome. There is a whole industry that goes into it. Which is why we can't build Iowa class battleships anymore, nor could we build Nimitz carriers in 1939. Europe can't build B21's, the US can't build J20s, Russia can't build either. The shipyard is just a component of that capability. Widgets and sprockets and dodads.

Honestly if we end up with a 16-32Vls platform, with a crew of <100, with at least 1 ship IOC by 2030 I think we will be very lucky. But you have to throw down the challenge. RAND has already done an analysis of this type of build and submitted a report to government.

The configuration of CEAFAR radars & SAAB 9LV is mature in the ANZAC class but, I understand that installing it in any of the types under consideration would require design time for space, power & cooling. If it can be done in reasonable time & cost, then this would give the RAN the most suitable configuration.

Radar would be the big thing. Which of these was engineered around a big fat power hungry radar with a lot of mass and structure up high? Luckily they are all pretty modern, so they are closer to being able to fit something like that.

Typically bigger platforms have the biggest growth and fitout margins. If you want to accelerate the build, go with the design with the biggest margins, and push forward. We really don't have time for a bespoke build.

That being said, I don't think a very modern 6,200t, 140+m long ~18m wide "corvette" will have a significant problem fitting CEAFAR and 9LV that was fitted to a frigate half the size. It is an issue to fit it to a 1500t OPV..

We still have the Hunters, and the Hobarts, so these don't have to have the absolute largest CEAFAR array. Tier 2.

 

[SiVisPacemParaBellum]

I made myself a strong black coffee and read the Independent Analysis of Navy's Surface Combatant Fleet from front to back. I took the following key items.

• Large Optionally Crew Surface Vessels (LOCSVs) are intended for pairing with Hunters and Hobarts only, not Tier 2s. (This acronym needs some work, it's terrible).
• LOCSVs are intended for strike, so I assume this means primarily an NSM/Tomahawk platform, not ESSM/SM2/3/6.
• Tier 2s optimised for ASW, with a strike capability (again assume NSM/Tomahawk) and local/point defence (ESSM/CIWS)
• ANZAC Transcap was recommended, pending the timeline for Tier 2 acquisition. This was the only recommendation rejected by the Government.
• OPVs are inefficient for constabulary duties, and are not suited to mine warfare or survey work. Government to seek a suitable function for them.
• Patrol fleet should be consolidated around the Evolved Cape Class
• Henderson shipbuilding to be consolidated, using the strategic partnership created with Austal. Not a lot of confidence that it is ready for a Tier 2 build.

Also after watching Marles on 730 Report last night, I added the following key points.

• Should have at least four of the Tier 2s in service by 2034, so suggests one a year from 2030.
• LOCSVs will be (at least initially) staffed.
• Tier 2 will align with an already proven design, and an available production line for fast and low risk delivery.

My take aways:

• Luerrsen are the single biggest looser. OPV order cut in half and excluded from the Tier 2 program. They really pissed off someone.
• No big missile ships, instead it doubles down on the small/medium (16/32/48) VLS style rather than the larger (96/112) type platforms. Surely this will silence the “must have Burkes” choir.
• I find it interesting that after all the noise about having too many ASW platforms with the Hunters, and that ships are no good for this function, the Tier 2 is to be optimised for ASW.
• I find it surprising that the AAW capability for the Tier 2s has been deprioritised to a point defence only. I would have thought that an SM2 fit would have been important in the missile defence age. I feel this goes against the commentary of getting ships with more missiles, and is a weakness if they are to operate alone.
• If the Tier 2s are to have a strike capability, then they will need the deeper strike rather than tactical cells and it suggest a larger magazine. I can’t see a 16 cell VLS working for a useful Tomahawk loadout when at minimum 8 of the VLS will be used for ESSM. Particularly when they will not be paired with LOCSVs. Seems to suggest ships with 24/32 cell VLS would be at an advantage with a loadout of 32 ESSM and 16/24 Tomahawks.
• No plan presented for the minehunter and survey boat replacement. Interesting to see what happens here.
• No information on supply ship requirements for a fleet of this size. I would have thought the current two oilers would be stretched to support a fleet of 26 ships. Maybe this review comes later, this was a combatant review after all.
• No confirmation that the Hunter platform will be picked up for future AAW requirements. Just a possibility among other options, and as a replacement rather than a complement to the Hobarts. I had expected more certainty that this would be anointed and accelerated in build. It means that the force structure will be limited to three specialised AAW hulls for the long term. Also a bit damming for BAE.
• Initially crewing the LOCSVs removes the autonomous technology risk, however I assume this would be limited to a basic bridge team, not a full complement (say 20 people).
• Tier 2 selection is prioritised around a platform already in the water with a hot production line with capacity now. It will be interesting to see the level of customisation. For instance will the seafar radar package and Saab 9LV be mandated. Will they have aegis/CEC which I thought was necessary for Tomahawks. The MEKO option seems to have the advantage here.
• I am also surprised that the Arrowhead was excluded from the list of suitable platforms. Perhaps this is due to Babcock not having sufficient production capacity to meet delivery timeframes. Maybe it is not considered a suitably quiet platform for ASW, or maybe it is too expensive in comparison to the others. I can’t imagine Babcock will take this lying down.
• The Henderson consolidation picture is uncertain. The Government clearly favours Austal who have the people and skills, however Civmec has the infrastructure. The Austal buildings are nowhere near big enough to construct frigates in. There also remains the question of additional docking capability which remains unanswered.
• Henderson does however seem to get a bigger slice of the shipbuilding pie than Osborne (Tier 2s, LOCSVs, heavy transports, and patrol boats). Osborne keeps the Hunters and Subs and gets a promise of a future AAW build.

Lastly the $20 billion unfunded hole in the Hunter program seems to have been buried in all the other news. What on earth was this and how did that get through to this stage of the project unnoticed. Does it mean that we will still need to pay $45 billion or more for the six ships.

NVL prbly didn't do "anything" wrong.
You've decided that you don't want the OPVs anymore that you've initially ordered. That's it.
NVL (Lürssen) can't offer anything but Support vessels or OPVs. They don't have a frigate which could be pitched as Tier 2 Combatant.
But losing this contract will definitely hurt them...
I somehow can't see the German Boxer Buy happening in this regard.
It's overprized and the behaviour of the australian govt towards Germany is also "special".
That's why I do personally see the A200 as a strong contender.

 

[iambuzzard]

I would expect a fairly open set of criteria than more than one can meet.

Its doesn't have to be Japan, and if there is no plan B, then when Japan gets wiped out by the "second impact" or mechzilla, or they put in the price and we have to sell Victoria, we have options.

This can't be a captains pick with no other options even benchmarked or looked at. Look at the SH decision, or the F-35 decision, both of which are fairly singular in the outcome, we still had people saying why didn't we even consider the F-22, or the F-15 or the Eurofighter or revised Mega stealth F-111's. You make a list, you make it public, you can then eliminate options, like the F-22, it wasn't even on the table to be considered and the industry building it was already drying up.

There are four good, capable, realistic ships listed. Yes, something like that. In fact Australia may want to spec specifically, equipment from any of those four projects in what ever it builds. So its looking at those supply chains across those as well as the ship dimensions, capacities etc.

The ships are just the outcome. There is a whole industry that goes into it. Which is why we can't build Iowa class battleships anymore, nor could we build Nimitz carriers in 1939. Europe can't build B21's, the US can't build J20s, Russia can't build either. The shipyard is just a component of that capability. Widgets and sprockets and dodads.

Honestly if we end up with a 16-32Vls platform, with a crew of <100, with at least 1 ship IOC by 2030 I think we will be very lucky. But you have to throw down the challenge. RAND has already done an analysis of this type of build and submitted a report to government.


Radar would be the big thing. Which of these was engineered around a big fat power hungry radar with a lot of mass and structure up high? Luckily they are all pretty modern, so they are closer to being able to fit something like that.

Typically bigger platforms have the biggest growth and fitout margins. If you want to accelerate the build, go with the design with the biggest margins, and push forward. We really don't have time for a bespoke build.

That being said, I don't think a very modern 6,200t, 140+m long ~18m wide "corvette" will have a significant problem fitting CEAFAR and 9LV that was fitted to a frigate half the size. It is an issue to fit it to a 1500t OPV..

We still have the Hunters, and the Hobarts, so these don't have to have the absolute largest CEAFAR array. Tier 2.

Don't sell Victoria, I live here. Besides, in it's current state it wouldn't be worth much. Lol

 

[Armchair]

One has to wonder if an order is placed in 2025 for the Mogami class and cut steel happens in 2026, japan could easily delivery us all 3 before the end of the decade at the rate they build them(even with other ships built inbetween). So why does the government announce just 1 frigate at the end of the decade? Have they already chosen?

presumably AusGov will write “1 delivered by 2030” into the requirements and contract. The initial requests for information may have confirmed that is viable for the nominated exemplars. We probably won’t know for many years if delivering more ships before 2030 is a selection criterion (but there is also the issue of absorbing more ships into the RAN faster than that).
I wonder if there will be any pull through of ANZAC equipment.