Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Armchair]

The most obvious candidate for a MOTS build is the Hobart. We could have three of them built urgently in Spain, rather than the current plan to build three non-existant warship designs in a yet to be determined foreign yard. The other part of the plan would be to accelerate the production of the Hunter class. I think an aim to have at least three in service by the mid thirties should be quite achievable,

assuming any part of that plan could be implemented where would the trained crews come from? The RAN is retiring ships with crew sizes close to 200 and replacing them with ships with smaller crews (lets say 50 fewer per ship but we don’t know). Your plan adds 5 more Tier 1s by (say) 2035 and possibly 1 new Tier 2. That is 1150 more sailors (less retired ANZAC crews). The government‘s plan says 1 more Tier 1 and 3 Tier 2 (by 2034). They are proposing 550 more sailors (a big ask, and I am not confident they will get there, but they are taking steps such as foregoing TRANSCAP and cutting OPVs that may help). We can play around with the dates and anticipated crew sizes to get the margin smaller but I think in the best case you are still proposing about 400 more crew positions than the government is in the mid 30s.

Sure your fleet is more capable on paper, and maybe exactly the right thing to have started 10 years ago, but it does not provide capability if it cannot go to sea. You are also proposing a fleet structure that requires hundreds more highly trained people (compared to the announced plan) for a service that is simultaneously acquiring SSNs.

Add to that the cost. Those extra larger ships need to be purchased and sustained and that money needs to come in the next 10 years. It needs to be a whole lot more than $11bn.

 

[old faithful]

Well the next federal election is Sept 2025.
That gives this ,very slow paced Government about 17 months to select a teir 2 frigate, and get a contract signed.
The next election is definitely not a given for the ALP to retain governance, they will need to negotiate quite a few hurdles to make it.

Power bill rebate X.
No Tax reform X
Referendum X
Immigration X
Cost of living X
Housing Crisis X
Moving towards cashless is a huge issue that is only popular with the bankers. Don't underestimate how unpopular it is!

And the votes they got last election are hardly a confidence boost.
We are in big trouble, because this whole Navy plan could never eventuate.
Lots can happen.

 

[Stampede]

I think the report stated they were inefficient for constabulary duties, rather than were not suited. This related to the larger crew size of an Arafura over a cape class patrol boat to do effectively (in their view) the same function.

I'm not sure I agree with that assessment but there we have it.

So Australia does not need an off shore patrol vessel !!!
Complete nonsense and games by either Navy or government which as usual will bite them in the arse.

Forget the war fighting stuff and just keep
the mission to constabulary work.

I'm sure the Capes are a good vessel for their intended role.
That said the long distance perseverance presence will now fall to a limited number of OPVs, aviation assets and most likely yet again major fleet units !
After 4 generations of patrol boats have we not learnt.
If Navy are so desperate for crew that we can't staff six additional OPVs as originally planned then we have Buckley's chance of crewing our future fleet going forward.
The OPVs have a bigger crew than the Capes because they can do more. Simple!

Surely we want more sea days across the fleet now so that junior sailors and officers today become that pool of senior leaders tomorrow.

The OPVs in defence terms are not big dollars yet offer so much.

Maybe Luerssen are new to the shipbuilding game and we are not happy with their product.

Perplexing S

 

[MickB]

I've always liked the concept of the Invincible Class and Hyuga class, even if possibly at a smaller scale. And with no fixed wing aircraft.

If large portions of the fleet become made up of unmanned vessels, it probably becomes more viable.

Large flat deck with a large hanger for Helicopters and UAV's. enough displacement to get a big radar up really high. And if you want to, plenty of space to fit lots of VLS around the periphery. Supported with GP frigates and/or optionally manned vessels there would be the potential to generate a significant force with limited crew requirements and at a (relatively) economical cost for the capability generated.

While you do put a lot of egg's in one basket, you also increase the efficiency of aircraft maintenance crew requirements and increase your sea level radar coverage.

Check out the Damen MPSS that I mentioned in a previous post.
Currently on order for the Portuguese navy.

A flattop of around 7000 tons with a core crew of around 50/60.
Capable of operating one medium helo and 50+ drones.

With configurable internal spaces for many roles, in this case for intelligence and command staff.
I think a ship like this with a mix of recon and strike drones would be a useful asset in the Red Sea area right now..
(would need dedicated AAW escort)

 

[Tbone]

Would the Damen MPSS be a good platform for survey/mcm operations?

 

[GregorZ]

Would the Damen MPSS be a good platform for survey/mcm operations?

I think so, depends on cost I guess. Would make an exceptional OPV too, again coming down to cost. The manning seems great at 50.

 

[StevoJH]

Interesting! Yet a little over a week ago when the prospect of the UK possibly looking to offload the Prince of Wales (the next step up beyond the Invincible Class) was brought up. You jumped on the bandwagon to refute it. Unable to see its potential to be repurposed beyond the current role.


The PoW just happens to be a large flat deck with hangers, space for large numbers of UAVs, a big radar and comprehensive C4I infrastructure. Which well-places it to be a capital ship for a fleet of smaller manned and unmanned systems, communication nodes, anti-submarine helicopters, and strike platforms.



Power projection, sea control, airspace control during distributed maritime operations, sustained CAP beyond the range of land-based fighters, a mobile forward operating base for distributed aviation across islands we are trying to hold as part of our A2AD strategy, ability to provide a small force of strike fighters that could provide a limited level of air support for expeditionary joint taskforces (if you are using as a carrier), a command-and-control centre for undersea control with for anti-submarine helicopters, a platform for launch and recovery of unmanned systems etc

For the most part, it would not be a single carrier operated by the RAN. It would be an Australian contribution to collective security as part of larger allied task forces supported by the US Pacific fleet (200 ships, 160,000 sailors and 1,500 aircraft) and supporting assets from other allies and partners.

Moot point anyway.UK came out and said they don't want to sell it, for now....................

I think it could definitely be argued that there is a "slight" difference between a 15-20,000t DDH or through deck ASW Cruiser that carries half a dozen ASW helicopters (with surge capacity) and a 65,000t fleet carrier designed to operate up to 36 F-35B's plus enablers.

They are completely different capabilities with completely different cost profiles.

 

[Tbone]

So Australia does not need an off shore patrol vessel !!!
Complete nonsense and games by either Navy or government which as usual will bite them in the arse.

Forget the war fighting stuff and just keep
the mission to constabulary work.

I'm sure the Capes are a good vessel for their intended role.
That said the long distance perseverance presence will now fall to a limited number of OPVs, aviation assets and most likely yet again major fleet units !
After 4 generations of patrol boats have we not learnt.
If Navy are so desperate for crew that we can't staff six additional OPVs as originally planned then we have Buckley's chance of crewing our future fleet going forward.
The OPVs have a bigger crew than the Capes because they can do more. Simple!

Surely we want more sea days across the fleet now so that junior sailors and officers today become that pool of senior leaders tomorrow.

The OPVs in defence terms are not big dollars yet offer so much.

Maybe Luerssen are new to the shipbuilding game and we are not happy with their product.

Perplexing S
[/QUOTE
While the capes can be upgunned with 40mm and NSM they wouldn’t be able to match the Arafura sea leaping and endurance at sea. The report does say the Arafura should be used across the pacific island and northern archipelago. Could this be taken as offshore basing deployments. Stationed at Lombrum and Stanley?
or will they be deployed as minelaying vessels?
my main concern is the arrival of an mcm vessel.. this was to be a Arafura based vessel but with them being cut this now looks to be many years off and very much needed now!
it’s been silent of the mcm vessels for many years with no leaks or confirmation on what the navy or government direction on this.

 

[Tbone]

While the capes can be upgunned with 40mm and NSM they wouldn’t be able to match the Arafura sea leaping and endurance at sea. The report does say the Arafura should be used across the pacific island and northern archipelago. Could this be taken as offshore basing deployments. Stationed at Lombrum and Stanley?
or will they be deployed as minelaying vessels?
my main concern is the arrival of an mcm vessel.. this was to be a Arafura based vessel but with them being cut this now looks to be many years off and very much needed now!
it’s been silent of the mcm vessels for many years with no leaks or confirmation on what the navy or government direction on this.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

There seems to me to be a lot of discussion around what the tier 2 warship is about to the extent that the salient points are being missed by some.

The Anzacs are ageing rapidly and need to be retired. The Hunters cannot be delivered much - if at all - sooner; there are unknowns in that project, possible delays that may arise. What was needed was an urgent replacement for the capability conferred by the Anzacs in an attempt to at least somewhat maintain the size of the surface fleet. Hence the overseas build of three frigates with a tight turnaround.

 

[Scott Elaurant]

Spiral upgrades of systems are complex enough, but major upgrades including life extension, and remedial structural and systems work, fall very much within the definition of "wicked problems".

Yes absolutely. Working on legacy IT and control systems that may be no longer in production can be a nightmare job. Its often easier to gut the platform and install a new system from scratch, so you at least know everything will work. In this respect there are very similar problems to ship upgrades in the world of rail upgrades and signalling for train operations.

In road and rail infrastructure projects our rule of thumb is that building in a brownfield site is +50% more expensive than greenfield. Same cost penalty with working on sites still in public use rather than closed to the public.

 

[GregorZ]

There seems to me to be a lot of discussion around what the tier 2 warship is about to the extent that the salient points are being missed by some.

The Anzacs are ageing rapidly and need to be retired. The Hunters cannot be delivered much - if at all - sooner; there are unknowns in that project, possible delays that may arise. What was needed was an urgent replacement for the capability conferred by the Anzacs in an attempt to at least somewhat maintain the size of the surface fleet. Hence the overseas build of three frigates with a tight turnaround.

This, combined with the previous post about no information about the MCM replacements leads me to think this may fall under the Light FFG umbrella under the generic ‘provide force protection’ requirement. To that extent, if my assumption is correct I think the Mogami is almost a shoe in.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

This, combined with the previous post about no information about the MCM replacements leads me to think this may fall under the Light FFG umbrella under the generic ‘provide force protection’ requirement. To that extent, if my assumption is correct I think the Mogami is almost a shoe in.

I don't think no news about the MCM replacements necessarily relates to the tier two choice. I would have thought that if the major decider is risk mitigation then we are likely to go for what we know. Hence, the Meko A200 or A210.

 

[Stampede]

This, combined with the previous post about no information about the MCM replacements leads me to think this may fall under the Light FFG umbrella under the generic ‘provide force protection’ requirement. To that extent, if my assumption is correct I think the Mogami is almost a shoe in.

I'd speculate that future frigates and destroyers will have alot of flexibility in their design to take on a diversity of roles their predecessors could never accomplish.
Mission bay on the Hunters point the way as do the crane, deck space and support systems on the Arafura Class to accommodate 20foot containers.
That said, their will always be limitations and trade offs.
MCM on the Arafura Class has gone quiet in the public space.
Potentially they could carry the small stuff ,but the new manned/unmanned boats are of a significant size and in all probability too big for the Arafuras without some significant engineering work.
Suggest MCM will be a broad church of assets deployed across the fleet.
These assets will be a compliment , not a substitute for a dedicated MCM vessel.
That's my guess.
Hopefully some clarity soon

Cheers S

 

[GregorZ]

I'd speculate that future frigates and destroyers will have alot of flexibility in their design to take on a diversity of roles their predecessors could never accomplish.
Mission bay on the Hunters point the way as do the crane, deck space and support systems on the Arafura Class to accommodate 20foot containers.
That said, their will always be limitations and trade offs.
MCM on the Arafura Class has gone quiet in the public space.
Potentially they could carry the small stuff ,but the new manned/unmanned boats are of a significant size and in all probability too big for the Arafuras without some significant engineering work.
Suggest MCM will be a broad church of assets deployed across the fleet.
These assets will be a compliment , not a substitute for a dedicated MCM vessel.
That's my guess.
Hopefully some clarity soon

Cheers S

Great points, forgot about the Hunters mission bay, that could be used for MCM tasks when required.

I guess we wait and see what happens in the RANs MCM space.

 

[Armchair]

Forget the war fighting stuff and just keep
the mission to constabulary work.

if the analysis says It is inefficient to use the Arafura for constabulary duties I think it is worth asking if there are reasons why it might be true and evaluating those (along with the possibilities that it is a mistake or the government/ RAN is dishonest).

In that vein, I offer the following speculation (All of which may be wrong).

1.Intelligence assessments may suggest there is more inshore and less offshore demand for constabulary vessels than when the Arafuras were ordered. If so, there is zero chance of that info going into the report.

2. It is more efficient to use Border Force than RAN crews and Arafura Is too complex, not well configured for Border Force.

3. The OPV without a hangar or crewed aviation may be less efficient (even for Border Force) than defence vessels with helicopters.

4. The anticipated threat environment for offshore constabulary patrols in Australia’s north in say 2030, might require protection from drones, missiles, rockets, fast attack craft and sea drones operated by state and non-state actors (Arafura’s specifications preceded the invasion of Ukraine).

If Navy are so desperate for crew that we can't staff six additional OPVs as originally planned then we have Buckley's chance of crewing our future fleet going forward.

240 sailors might crew 2 GP Frigates

The OPVs in defence terms are not big dollars yet offer so much.

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/defence-procurement-offshore-patrol-vessels-sea-1180-phase-1

$3.5bn program cost in 2020.
I would guess it is more now, obviously I have no idea is being saved as that would still be under negotiation.

Maybe Luerssen are new to the shipbuilding game and we are not happy with their product.

Shifting an industrial build to WA during COVID must have made their job rather tricky.

 

[hauritz]

assuming any part of that plan could be implemented where would the trained crews come from? The RAN is retiring ships with crew sizes close to 200 and replacing them with ships with smaller crews (lets say 50 fewer per ship but we don’t know). Your plan adds 5 more Tier 1s by (say) 2035 and possibly 1 new Tier 2. That is 1150 more sailors (less retired ANZAC crews). The government‘s plan says 1 more Tier 1 and 3 Tier 2 (by 2034). They are proposing 550 more sailors (a big ask, and I am not confident they will get there, but they are taking steps such as foregoing TRANSCAP and cutting OPVs that may help). We can play around with the dates and anticipated crew sizes to get the margin smaller but I think in the best case you are still proposing about 400 more crew positions than the government is in the mid 30s.

Sure your fleet is more capable on paper, and maybe exactly the right thing to have started 10 years ago, but it does not provide capability if it cannot go to sea. You are also proposing a fleet structure that requires hundreds more highly trained people (compared to the announced plan) for a service that is simultaneously acquiring SSNs.

Add to that the cost. Those extra larger ships need to be purchased and sustained and that money needs to come in the next 10 years. It needs to be a whole lot more than $11bn.

Sure crew sizes are an issue but even the announced plans for new ships will call for a substantial increase in manning level. Eventually the navy expects to man 26 surface combatants, 8 SSNs, half a dozen OPV, around 10 patrol boats, 2 LHDs, 2 AORs, plus a number of other support vessels.

That the RAN is already struggling to man what we already have is disturbing and needs to be addressed urgently. The navy has been falling short of its recruitment targets for many years now.

Also I think some of the crewing levels for the proposed GP frigates are a little misleading. It is worth considering how crew sizes are actually determined. For example what missions are these ships expected to perform? How many watches do you need to man? What level of onshore support will be required to operate this ship?

Automated systems have inherent risks in terms of reliability. They require more onshore support. Then of course there are issues such as additional training and perhaps a heavier workload for crew members since now they will be expected to multitask. In actual combat situations you will need sufficient crew for damage control, in fact even in peace time you might still have emergencies such as ship fires or collisions.

At the end of the day the navy will have to decide what capabilities are they willing to sacrifice and what additional level of risk they are willing to accept to reduce crew sizes.

Like everything else in life low manned ships comes down to what trade-offs are you wiling to make. In the case of the navy review they have decided on a larger navy made up of lower manned tier two ships. Lets hope they have got it right.

 

[SammyC]

if the analysis says It is inefficient to use the Arafura for constabulary duties I think it is worth asking if there are reasons why it might be true and evaluating those (along with the possibilities that it is a mistake or the government/ RAN is dishonest).

In that vein, I offer the following speculation (All of which may be wrong).

1.Intelligence assessments may suggest there is more inshore and less offshore demand for constabulary vessels than when the Arafuras were ordered. If so, there is zero chance of that info going into the report.

2. It is more efficient to use Border Force than RAN crews and Arafura Is too complex, not well configured for Border Force.

3. The OPV without a hangar or crewed aviation may be less efficient (even for Border Force) than defence vessels with helicopters.

4. The anticipated threat environment for offshore constabulary patrols in Australia’s north in say 2030, might require protection from drones, missiles, rockets, fast attack craft and sea drones operated by state and state actors (Arafura’s specifications preceded the invasion of Ukraine).


240 sailors might crew 2 GP Frigates

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/defence-procurement-offshore-patrol-vessels-sea-1180-phase-1

$3.5bn program cost in 2020.
I would guess it is more now, obviously I have no idea is being saved as that would still be under negotiation.


Shifting an industrial build to WA during COVID must have made their job rather tricky.

Interesting points Armchair. I do remember a review recommendation (which the Government accepted) to further explore the best use of the Arafuras. Hopefully this will be shared with the public in due course and it will give us a clearer understanding.

Your point on the higher future risk of offshore patrol is perhaps one to note, and speaks of a scary outlook for the region. To my mind I would view that piracy and grey nation intimidation become more prevalent going forward.

In regards to your last point, I sometimes think they would have been better to have left the Arafura program in Osborne rather than move it to WA.

 

[Armchair]

Interesting points Armchair. I do remember a review recommendation (which the Government accepted) to further explore the best use of the Arafuras. Hopefully this will be shared with the public in due course and it will give us a clearer understanding.

A couple of posters have suggested South Pacific basing. Protection would remain an issue.

Your point on the higher future risk of offshore patrol is perhaps one to note, and speaks of a scary outlook for the region. To my mind I would view that piracy and grey nation intimidation become more prevalent going forward.

I am not predicting it will be especially scary just imagining planners would be looking at Black and Red Sea assessments,

In regards to your last point, I sometimes think they would have been better to have left the Arafura program in Osborne rather than move it to WA.

The motivation of developing warship building skills in WA was a good one. Hopefully it will pay off.

 

[Stampede]

if the analysis says It is inefficient to use the Arafura for constabulary duties I think it is worth asking if there are reasons why it might be true and evaluating those (along with the possibilities that it is a mistake or the government/ RAN is dishonest).

In that vein, I offer the following speculation (All of which may be wrong).

1.Intelligence assessments may suggest there is more inshore and less offshore demand for constabulary vessels than when the Arafuras were ordered. If so, there is zero chance of that info going into the report.

2. It is more efficient to use Border Force than RAN crews and Arafura Is too complex, not well configured for Border Force.

3. The OPV without a hangar or crewed aviation may be less efficient (even for Border Force) than defence vessels with helicopters.

4. The anticipated threat environment for offshore constabulary patrols in Australia’s north in say 2030, might require protection from drones, missiles, rockets, fast attack craft and sea drones operated by state and non-state actors (Arafura’s specifications preceded the invasion of Ukraine).


240 sailors might crew 2 GP Frigates

https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/defence-procurement-offshore-patrol-vessels-sea-1180-phase-1

$3.5bn program cost in 2020.
I would guess it is more now, obviously I have no idea is being saved as that would still be under negotiation.


Shifting an industrial build to WA during COVID must have made their job rather tricky.

A bit to unpack and my response is also speculative.
Always thought our OPV was 10m short.
Should of been helicopter capable with dedicated hangar and support systems.
So yes the Arafura have some limitations.
Interested as to what Navy input was in cutting numbers back from 12 to 6.
However you work with what you have and they certainly have attributes over something much smaller.
They will also be in service this year.
Repeat that............. In service this year.
Note that Navy Review.

RAN and Border force both operating similar vessels doing like work.
A confusing dance.
Whoever has ownership they are at the end of the day a government expensive with a budget to be found.
Uniform colour becomes at bit academic.

Re the oft quoted 240 personal number, it always raises a smile and a eyebrow!

If a nation of over 26000000 people can not find these crewing needs, then wow we have a serious problem.
Another consideration.

Is it 240 crew or in fact the difference in crew size between an Arafura and a E Cape.
That's a much smaller figure!

Anyway we have six OPVs in various states of construction.
Two in the water and hopefully in service before the years end.
Four others on the way.

Looking forward to seeing them fly the flag.


Cheers S