Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Actually I wonder if the Capes will now be commissioned and get some armament. Up until now they were probably considered as an interim measure until we got our full fleet of Arafuras. I am not even sure if the navy owns them or is leasing them.

Also there was some talk of using the Arafura as MCM and Hydro vessels. I wonder if those plans are changing.

The review stated that the Arafuras were not suitable for the MCM and survey role, but did not recommend an alternative solution or provide reason. My understanding is that this related to difficulties operating drone platforms from them.

Given that the Huons and Leeuwins are old vessels that need replacement, it leaves the capability a bit in the lurch. Hopefully there will be an update on this program later.

Stampede, I agree with your view on the Arafuras. I think they are copping some not fully justified flak at the moment. I suspect that once they start to commission and clear the current build concerns, they will prove to be valuable in the offshore constabulary role that the capes would struggle with, and the frigates are overkill for.

 

[SammyC]

Also, for full transparency and reflection, I note that I only successfully picked one element of the review, being that the Hunters would be retained. I backed the wrong horse for the Tier 2, thought the Arafuras would remain, hadn't even considered the LOCSV and believed there would be more balance to AAW. Pretty poor performance on my behalf.

As such I am sending my crystal ball off for recalibration and overhaul. There is also a nice rabbit hair hat that I am preparing to eat in small pieces.

 

[GregorZ]

The review stated that the Arafuras were not suitable for the MCM and survey role, but did not recommend an alternative solution or provide reason. My understanding is that this related to difficulties operating drone platforms from them.

Given that the Huons and Leeuwins are old vessels that need replacement, it leaves the capability a bit in the lurch. Hopefully there will be an update on this program later.

Stampede, I agree with your view on the Arafuras. I think they are copping some not fully justified flak at the moment. I suspect that once they start to commission and clear the current build concerns, they will prove to be valuable in the offshore constabulary role that the capes would struggle with, and the frigates are overkill for.

Perhaps the Huon replacement can be accomplished by the patrol frigate. The Mogami class can do mine warfare as designed. No idea what they can get for survey replacements though.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Also, for full transparency and reflection, I note that I only successfully picked one element of the review, being that the Hunters would be retained. I backed the wrong horse for the Tier 2, thought the Arafuras would remain, hadn't even considered the LOCSV and believed there would be more balance to AAW. Pretty poor performance on my behalf.

As such I am sending my crystal ball off for recalibration and overhaul. There is also a nice rabbit hair hat that I am preparing to eat in small pieces.

I think you did pretty well Sammy. There's been so much speculation and there were really probably a few directions they could have gone in.

For my own part, I'm pretty happy to look back on this post I made in November:

Reading this thread as someone not as knowledgeable as most (possibly any) of you, I am trying to get my head around what the dilemmas are here for Australia in regard to our surface fleet (such as it is). It seems to me that there is a drive to have more warships, but there is real concern that the number we have will actually fall long before it gets better.

My understanding being that we don't expect the first Hunter to be commissioned now until 2032 at the earliest, and that they will then be delivered two years apart. But Anzac herself will be 36 years old in 2032, and by the time the eighth Hunter is delivered in 2046 (at that rate of one every two years) the youngest Anzac, Perth, would have been in commission for 40 years.

I understand that there are doubts the Anzacs will last, in spite of their upgrade program, and there are crewing challenges, and speculation now too that the Hunters are to be cut to six ships, and that we then might go for an AAW version for the last three, and/or that we might get another class in the nearer term to deliver a larger fleet sooner, with tier 1 and tier 2 warships being discussed too. Most of it is speculation I guess.

I can see the logic in acquiring another class of warship sooner - like ASAP - maybe even built overseas to both ensure our existing fleet doesn't diminish in size and to instead try to grow the numbers.

Ideally, but also realistically though, what are we looking at? Could we get four ships ordered and delivered on a similar-ish schedule to the Hunters, preferably sped up to one every 18 months, so that we could replace the Anzacs one for one by, say, the end of 2037? Then the fifth and sixth Hunters would be extras, taking the force to 13 ships, and next an AAW version or a whole new class of maybe six could take us to 16, with the last three of those replacing the Hobarts from 2047 (when Hobart herself will be 30 years old)?

Is building an extra class - basically an interim frigate or maybe something more capable - and quickly the only way to guarantee our existing numbers and build up the surface force sooner? If so, is it feasible to build it here or is it best to look overseas? I'm really interested in the bigger picture thoughts here. Hope I'm making sense.

And just for a very left-field thought, could we be interested in looking to a country like Finland which is building a class of four corvettes (really light frigates) that will hit the water at a rate of one a year through to 2031? Only came across that program because it is the same shipyard that is building the new Spirit of Tasmania ferries.

 

[Wombat000]

With regards to the Light Frigate design to be selected, I’m just thinking that:

a) it needs to have at least the equivalent sensor capability of the Anzacs.
others are far better aware of the scope of new-build generational advancement options than I am, but I understand Anzacs to already have a powerful sensor suite.

b) 16 VLS is double the Anzacs being replaced, but is that genuinely enough?
to go to the effort of building these, aren’t we really directly implying a minimum of 32cells?

c) a towed array sonar is a no-brainer.

Im also thinking the Hunter tranche-2 (96 cell AWD variant) may evolve within the announced projections, because logically it’s apparently closely related to the current build.

 

[Redlands18]

With regards to the Light Frigate design to be selected, I’m just thinking that:

a) it needs to have at least the equivalent sensor capability of the Anzacs.
others are far better aware of the scope of new-build generational advancement options than I am, but I understand Anzacs to already have a powerful sensor suite.

b) 16 VLS is double the Anzacs being replaced, but is that genuinely enough?
to go to the effort of building these, aren’t we really directly implying a minimum of 32cells?

c) a towed array sonar is a no-brainer.

Im also thinking the Hunter tranche-2 (96 cell AWD variant) may evolve within the announced projections, because logically it’s apparently closely related to the current build.

The question that has to be asked, can you fit 32 cells on these designs* and retain other important capabilities, such as a comprehensive ASW suite and decent range and endurance? Remember, the smaller the vessel, the more compromises that have to be made. I suspect they have settled on 16 on a larger number of smaller Frigates. I can't see anyway we are looking at 32 Cells on a 109m, 3000t ship, even the A200 at 121m may struggle.
*Also, the Japanese added another 9m to the Mogami design to fit another 16 cells and a better ASW fit.

 

[Volkodav]

At the time of the Gulf War, the Navy still had a capacity to do such (relatively minor) design in house. The stupid economic rationalism of the 90s, which unfortunately in some ways still holds sway, removed it

This is the most frustrating thing for me, transactional versus non transactional.

The idea that defence, or government as a whole, is all about setting the requirements, writing the contracts, then doing governance and assurance over the contracted work. The most positive and successful projects I have worked in are the ones where all parties are working together, yet the entire system is geared towards functional separation, with adversarial oversight.

With the staffing recruitment and retention issues it does my head in that so much talent is assign to throwing stones at a distance, rather than hooking in and fixing things.

 

[iambuzzard]

This is the most frustrating thing for me, transactional versus non transactional.

The idea that defence, or government as a whole, is all about setting the requirements, writing the contracts, then doing governance and assurance over the contracted work. The most positive and successful projects I have worked in are the ones where all parties are working together, yet the entire system is geared towards functional separation, with adversarial oversight.

With the staffing recruitment and retention issues it does my head in that so much talent is assign to throwing stones at a distance, rather than hooking in and fixing things.

Volks, you are a voice of reason. It's a pity the pollies and defence hiearchy can't work together.

 

[76mmGuns]

So the people who thought the naval industry would have at least a 30 year job security now find a third of the ships they'd thought they'd be building are gone. Back to the cycle of a surge in tradies for 10-15 years, then nothing again and then the mad scramble to find another design.

In addition, they are now going to unofficially adopt the failed congruence policy of the US, where they want to things which don't actually exist yet, but hell, we'll invent them at the same time we build the exterior.

And it's a fallacy to think drones don't need crew or people. You simply shift them from being on the ship to being somewhere else.

I have to admit I did enjoy the peaceful flow of the Hunter program just moving forward unchanged for the last handful of years, while the sub program was less so. It was nice while it lasted.

 

[iambuzzard]

So the people who thought the naval industry would have at least a 30 year job security now find a third of the ships they'd thought they'd be building are gone. Back to the cycle of a surge in tradies for 10-15 years, then nothing again and then the mad scramble to find another design.

In addition, they are now going to unofficially adopt the failed congruence policy of the US, where they want to things which don't actually exist yet, but hell, we'll invent them at the same time we build the exterior.

And it's a fallacy to think drones don't need crew or people. You simply shift them from being on the ship to being somewhere else.

I have to admit I did enjoy the peaceful flow of the Hunter program just moving forward unchanged for the last handful of years, while the sub program was less so. It was nice while it lasted.

I think you'll find the planned 3rd tranche of the Hunter program (hulls 7, 8, and 9) will evolve into the Hobart replacement so there will be no stop to the ship building.
If as I hope, this is planned carefully, we should see continuous shipbuilding in SA and WA for the next 30 to 40 years.
It's a pity Williamstown is out of the picture, but Victoriastan is a basket case and it will never reopen. I own a small hobby shop that's somehow managed to survive the culling of small businesses in this state. Not easy.

 

[Redlands18]

So the people who thought the naval industry would have at least a 30 year job security now find a third of the ships they'd thought they'd be building are gone. Back to the cycle of a surge in tradies for 10-15 years, then nothing again and then the mad scramble to find another design.

In addition, they are now going to unofficially adopt the failed congruence policy of the US, where they want to things which don't actually exist yet, but hell, we'll invent them at the same time we build the exterior.

And it's a fallacy to think drones don't need crew or people. You simply shift them from being on the ship to being somewhere else.

I have to admit I did enjoy the peaceful flow of the Hunter program just moving forward unchanged for the last handful of years, while the sub program was less so. It was nice while it lasted.

Hunter class build 2024-43, immediately followed by the Hobart replacement, Lt Frigates one built at Henderson by 2034, remaining seven by 2040-42? Six LOSV to be built at Henderson 2034-44, Eighteen LMV-M ordered, 6-8 LMV-H planned, 19 Patrol vessels to be replaced as required and going on how long the Armidale's lasted, they will need to be replaced every 15 years or so.
Other requirements not yet announced.
MCM/Hydro replacements
Choules replacement by 2?
Plenty of work to keep them going for decades, the problem will be to find the people.

 

[Redlands18]

Another thing they are going to have to give serious consideration to in the next few years is, increasing the AOR fleet to at least 4 ships.

 

[CJR]

Perhaps the Huon replacement can be accomplished by the patrol frigate. The Mogami class can do mine warfare as designed. No idea what they can get for survey replacements though.

For non-combat survey purposes probably an off the shelf Offshore Supply Vessel with appropriate equipment is probably fine (that and borrow RV Investigator or as needed...). For surveys under risk of getting probably drones operating off a light frigate...

Six LOSV to be built at Henderson 2034-44

I'd also suspect there's a good chance that *if* the LOSVs work as intended the order could be expanded... At the moment we're talking 6 LOSV for 9 Tier 1 combatants, allowing for availability that's probably 0.66 LOSV per Tier 1 combatant on the frontline (using the rule of threes for a first pass... 9 combatants equals 3 fully operations with surge capacity for 6, 6 LOSVs equals 2 avalible with surge capacity of 4), having more LOSVs would either give more firepower per Tier 1 or allow LOSVs to be rotated in and out for rearming, maintianing the endurance of any force on the frontline.

 

[Wombat000]

Further to my last, with regard to the new Light Frigate class,
I am skeptical of a 16 VLS fit out.

I think that it is the standard fit for today’s GP frigate, a meandering patrol frigate. Basically 16 is todays upgraded equivalent of Anzac when initially commissioned with 8 VLS.

If Anzacs were commissioned at that time with 16 VLS, then the class would be far more operationally relevant today, as they approach the end of their operational lives.
in the same manner, I suspect new-build 16 cell vessels is simply repeating that premature operational strain for another generation as they themselves enter the longer period of their operational lives.

Does the RAN expect these vessels to be a patrol presence, or are they to be a more meaningful weight in a high intensity task group?

I think the RAN and govt needs to learn from this experience, and remove 16 cell options from any selection.

 

[devo99]

So the people who thought the naval industry would have at least a 30 year job security now find a third of the ships they'd thought they'd be building are gone. Back to the cycle of a surge in tradies for 10-15 years, then nothing again and then the mad scramble to find another design.

It was explicitly stated that the DDG replacement program would be brought forward in order to avoid a gap.

 

[Armchair]

Another thing they are going to have to give serious consideration to in the next few years is, increasing the AOR fleet to at least 4 ships.

Isn’t that at least partially addressed by two Joint support ships that can replenish at sea under Sea 2200? I am unclear as to how much fuel they can store and transfer.

 

[Redlands18]

Further to my last, with regard to the new Light Frigate class,
I am skeptical of a 16 VLS fit out.

I think that it is the standard fit for today’s GP frigate, a meandering patrol frigate. Basically 16 is todays upgraded equivalent of Anzac when initially commissioned with 8 VLS.

If Anzacs were commissioned at that time with 16 VLS, then the class would be far more operationally relevant today, as they approach the end of their operational lives.
in the same manner, I suspect new-build 16 cell vessels is simply repeating that premature operational strain for another generation as they themselves enter the longer period of their operational lives.

Does the RAN expect these vessels to be a patrol presence, or are they to be a more meaningful weight in a high intensity task group?

I think the RAN and govt needs to learn from this experience, and remove 16 cell options from any selection.

The MEKO A200 is the direct replacement for the MEKO 200 design(Anzacs), basically a modernized version of the same design. Australia was never able to fit a 2nd 8 cell VLS on the Anzacs due to weight issues. TKMS themselves may be admitting they can't fit 32 cells onto the MEKO 200 by developing the MEKO A210. I get the feeling they had a choice between six to seven 5-6000t Frigates with 32 VLS or eleven 3-5000t Frigates with 16 VLS, so as to keep within the budget, maintain continuous shipbuilding and get the first three built OS ASAP.
As long as you have the crew of course, eleven ships gives you a much better ability to deploy 2 ships at a time.

 

[Redlands18]

Isn’t that at least partially addressed by two Joint support ships that can replenish at sea under Sea 2200? I am unclear as to how much fuel they can store and transfer.

That was the plan before they decided to double the fleet size, a fleet this size is going to need 4 AOR and 2 JSS as a bare minimum. All the JSS designs I have seen come with only two re-fueling Towers* the AORs generally come with 4.
*Sorry don't know the correct terminology.

 

[old faithful]

So the people who thought the naval industry would have at least a 30 year job security now find a third of the ships they'd thought they'd be building are gone. Back to the cycle of a surge in tradies for 10-15 years, then nothing again and then the mad scramble to find another design.

In addition, they are now going to unofficially adopt the failed congruence policy of the US, where they want to things which don't actually exist yet, but hell, we'll invent them at the same time we build the exterior.

And it's a fallacy to think drones don't need crew or people. You simply shift them from being on the ship to being somewhere else.

I have to admit I did enjoy the peaceful flow of the Hunter program just moving forward unchanged for the last handful of years, while the sub program was less so. It was nice while it lasted.

Nope, there will just be "delys" and cost blow outs. The build is slow as anyway, 10 years before ship 1 hits the water.

 

[aussienscale]

Another thing they are going to have to give serious consideration to in the next few years is, increasing the AOR fleet to at least 4 ships.

Wonder if Labor will tie in their election promised "Strategic Fleet" to assist in the logistics as well ?