Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
They already have a useful role. And we cannot unilaterally decide to base ships in foreign countries. On up arming them, see multiple previous discussions on this board. Bottom line - they are not ships designed to go in harms way and they should not be put in situations where they might do so. They are constabulary vessels.

Eyre being on the hard stand probably means she is having her bottom cleaned prior to sea trials. Very normal process.
To add to this, if one believes that the Arafura-class OPV's should be able to take on PRC 'Coast Guard' vessels, I would suggest first looking into what some of these vessels actually are and how they are armed/kitted out. IIRC some of the current 'Coast Guard' vessels are ex-PLAN frigates, whilst there are also a pair of 10k+ ton 'patrol cutters' which are armed with 76 mm guns and also the largest coast guard cutters currently in service in the world.

To put it another way, RAN MFU warships should be able to match or overmatch Chinese Coast Guard vessels. Any RAN OPV would need to be rebuilt into at least a corvette before it might come anywhere close to such a capability.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
You wouldn’t want to come up against a Type 56 corvette in an OPV.

- 4x Anti-Ship missiles.
- 8x SAM’s in a reloadable launcher for point defence
- 76mm gun.
- Presumably a decent electronics fitout.

I’m assuming they retained their missiles when they were transferred to the Coast Guard?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
You wouldn’t want to come up against a Type 56 corvette in an OPV.

- 4x Anti-Ship missiles.
- 8x SAM’s in a reloadable launcher for point defence
- 76mm gun.
- Presumably a decent electronics fitout.

I’m assuming they retained their missiles when they were transferred to the Coast Guard?
I believe some of the CCG Type 53 frigate vessels have had their armaments reduced, at least officially. However the basic vessel should still have the sort of redundancies and damage control features of a warship, whilst an OPV (unless/until it gets rebuilt to include same) would not. That would still be the sort of confrontation where overmatch would really be needed, i.e. one or more RAN FFG's, possibly backed up by RAAF aircraft.
 

Wombat000

Well-Known Member
I’m presuming by ‘grey zone’ interaction it would fall under the threshold of actual armed attack.
So the OPV would need to be beefy enough to handle physical argy-bargy, and drainage for receiving water cannon.

The hyper armed coast guard vessels are simply an attempt at intimidation, until if ever it goes hot.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
I think you might have missed Spoz's last post Severely. They do have something to do with them. There's possibly even too many things being suggested for them to do at this point. Now I just hope they sort out the complications with the shiplift upgrade in Darwin so they can do proper maintenance on them out of the water without taking up space at BAE's maintenance yards.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Let's recast this.

Imagine Australia did what China is doing.

A continuous build of small numbers (batches of three or four) of high end, continuously evolving and improving large warships. Say even a mix of Burke's, Hobart's, Type 23s ( or Type 22, F123s etc), being replaced at 24 to 30 years by something better.

A continuous build of up to a dozen second tier GP frigates that are sold to or converted to constabulary configuration and cascaded to allies and border force at say fifteen to twenty years service and no mid life upgrade.

A continuous build of corvettes and or FAC that same as the GP frigates, are sold or reroled for constabulary duties at fifteen or twenty years.

We could even use some as reserve training vessels and reestablish the port divisions. This could be used to qualify reserve operators to a level they could be used to support industry, without needing to force them to go full time to qualify.
 

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Let's recast this.

Imagine Australia did what China is doing.

A continuous build of small numbers (batches of three or four) of high end, continuously evolving and improving large warships. Say even a mix of Burke's, Hobart's, Type 23s ( or Type 22, F123s etc), being replaced at 24 to 30 years by something better.

A continuous build of up to a dozen second tier GP frigates that are sold to or converted to constabulary configuration and cascaded to allies and border force at say fifteen to twenty years service and no mid life upgrade.

A continuous build of corvettes and or FAC that same as the GP frigates, are sold or reroled for constabulary duties at fifteen or twenty years.

We could even use some as reserve training vessels and reestablish the port divisions. This could be used to qualify reserve operators to a level they could be used to support industry, without needing to force them to go full time to qualify.
Agree that there are very sensible things to do on your list (e.g. selling tier 2 without mid life upgrade, reserve training vessels) but Australia’s and China’s strategic circumstances are very different so China does not necessarily provide a good model for the RAN. Specifically heavily armed constabulary vessels are required by China because it is involved in intensely bitter territorial disputes with its maritime neighbours, and because of the methods it chooses to go about resource extraction and bending minor powers to its will (Australia uses different methods, also sometimes questionable, but outside scope of thread).
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
They already have a useful role. And we cannot unilaterally decide to base ships in foreign countries. On up arming them, see multiple previous discussions on this board. Bottom line - they are not ships designed to go in harms way and they should not be put in situations where they might do so. They are constabulary vessels.

Eyre being on the hard stand probably means she is having her bottom cleaned prior to sea trials. Very normal process.
Having a role in deployable mine counter measures under sea 1905 should not be overlooked ,when everything is working
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not yet the RAN; Defence, ie that part responsible for shipbuilding. Simplified and at a high level the process is;

Proof of compliance with contract (builders sea trials) - acceptance by Defence - transit to home port (if required) - completion of certifications leading to RAN sea release - delivery to RAN - proof of compliance with capability requirements (operational sea trials) - IOC - delivery of last ship in build - FOC.

From that press release, we’ve just completed stage 2. Transit if needed, and it is here, can occur before, during or after the certification process. Certification, particularly for the first of class, can take a month or two (or longer) depending on the complexity of the platform. Commissioning usually occurs on delivery to the RAN.
 
Last edited:

Armchair

Well-Known Member
Having a role in deployable mine counter measures under sea 1905 should not be overlooked ,when everything is working
Sources such as this one (to be treated with great caution but I couldn’t readily abstract the info from the Integrated investment program)

suggest the relevant parts of the program in the 2023 link you posted were cancelled and certainly the surface fleet analysis seemed to rule out OPVs for this role.
We have been through it a few times but my speculation is that even a fully working OPV can’t defend itself from, or engage, mine laying submarines or defend itself from shore batteries so would need to be escorted in the mine warfare role
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member

A bold statement from Japan but quite doable. Japan isn't under pressure to have the larger Mogami-class ships in service urgently. They already have the 12 of the baseline Mogamis under construction (or soon to be), which are replacing 14 destroyer escorts. A delay of a year or two wouldn't change anything.

The first two of the larger Mogamis are due to be laid down this year. Whereas there's no possibility of Germany supplying any frigates faster - the design is still theoretical and no long-lead orders have been placed.

I appreciate some RAN officers have a bit of a bee in their bonnet about MEKO likely having familiar systems, but I think we're fast approaching the point of scepticism of the Japanese offer being a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The OPV don't need to be mega armed. Realistically that isn't what they are for. They are for doing EEZ type stuff, their opposition is with civilian commercial/pirate ships. One of the great powers Australia has is good relations in the neighborhood and the ability to operate jointly with other forces in their waters. Having a OPV supports that. You stick Tomahawks and Sm6 on it, and now you have a war machine, which is then terrible at pulling over fishing boats, but also would be seen as an escalatory deployment into a region that is sensitive. The argument I have with the OPV is how many we need the priority and the focus, not really how heavily armed they need to be. As a war machine, an upgunned OPV is terrible at all its jobs.

A bold statement from Japan but quite doable. Japan isn't under pressure to have the larger Mogami-class ships in service urgently. They already have the 12 of the baseline Mogamis under construction (or soon to be), which are replacing 14 destroyer escorts. A delay of a year or two wouldn't change anything.
Too bold IMO. They aren't really giving any room for a decision. I note that while the commonwealth can shut up the commercial people involved, they can't really shut up the Japanese government. The fact that the usually reserved and quiet Japanese government is saying all these things on record, shows you how they view the project. This is going to be the execution of Abes dream of a Australia-Japan project that ties the two together.

I have heard the Japanese government is totally committed to winning it. I'm not even sure they would take no for an answer. They have a real don't give up and don't give in with relation to this project. It is so, very much more than just a dozen small frigates. Japanese diplomacy sees it as essential for Japan-US relations and Japan-China relations and the future security and sovereignty and security of Japan. Which is why the Japanese are prioritising the RAN over their own defence force. A strong tangible alliance with Australia is worth more than two dozen destroyers.

Not because we have the most powerful defence force, but because of our influence and connection to the USA military and civilian leadership. Our capabilities with the Chinese is also noteworthy, as Australia has proven itself surprisingly resilient against Chinese economic coercion. Australia has proven it can work, and work well in a Trump world. While Canada is being threatened with tariffs and a possible invasion, NATO with a war with its biggest member over greenland, Australia stands up as a US ally with no peer. Able to stand right next to the US, but also seemingly fairly invisible when the US starts throwing mud. While resilient against Chinese pressure, but also US pressures.

I appreciate some RAN officers have a bit of a bee in their bonnet about MEKO likely having familiar systems, but I think we're fast approaching the point of scepticism of the Japanese offer being a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth.
It's so generous as to require deep and complete review. Australia should be always skeptical when it comes to defence, even with allies and friends. Also, there is no need for an urgently fast decision from Australia, because Japan is suppose to be building them anyway for herself. An early yes from Australia might then see Japan curtail her side of the program, and Australia yet carries the can for another orphaned development.

We have acquired a lot of defence systems and platforms over the years, who have all underdelivered on future support from the parent country/entity. I don't think that is likely with the case with Japan, but it is a big fear Australia has, particularly when dealing with non-US projects. Tiger, Hobarts, LHD, NH90, were all starved of logistics and technical development by their parent nation operators.

Also there is an Australian federal election coming up. And such a large big announcement needs to be timed perfectly.
  • That the government is still committed to hunter and other existing projects.
  • That defence is an increasingly important priority that can't be waylaid by the radical peacenik hippies. Both within labor and the Greens and independents, who labor and Liberal are fighting in key seats. This is one where Labor and Liberals are absolutely lock step in defence. Their common enemy is independants and greens. It honestly matters more that Labor and Liberals win seats and the independents and Greens don't - from a defence point of view. (a few exceptions, Katter for eg)
The fact that Donald Trump is back in power, America is at increasingly dramatically erratic and dysfunctional levels, that there are multiple active wars happening, means that Australians are genuinely worried about defence, so defence announcements are now universal vote winners, not vote killers. They promote party unity, not party division.

BTW there would be tremendous pressure on who ever wins, to perform. Like way above expectations, which is already sky high. They better be building these ships 28 hrs a day, 9 days a week 400 days a year. Quality must be magnificent, in every way. The performance and quality better be *WAY* above and the price I believe will be fixed and aggressive.

Everyone is going to be watching this, including the US and China (but also the koreans, the Germans all the rivals and customers etc). They better have a build program that is so good it impresses the US, and outrightly annoys or shakes China. I don't just mean the Japanese part of the build either. Japan is going to have to invade Western Australia and make things happen there locally on the ground. They won't be able to just hire a few local floaters who interview well, and bring over a CEO team from Japan and hope something happens. (*Cough Cough Attack class - Naval*) They are going to need resources and capable people local and from Japan. They are going to need political will and support. They are going to need to support local SME and local supply. This needs to be a strategic focus like Ford and General motors were for America in Australia. If war happens, this place needs to function...

Honestly I think the Germans are there as benchmarks and to keep things from getting silly. They can be used to create a realistic benchmark before people on the other two sides have a project that gets overtly ambitious. They are excellent for that role. Also those Germans go back to Germany and tell their political leadership what is happening in the Asia Pacific and on this project. I hope they go back and literally, physically, slap their political masters, tell them things are happening, and that Germany and Europe is living in their own fantasy bubble and are being left behind and irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Sources such as this one (to be treated with great caution but I couldn’t readily abstract the info from the Integrated investment program)

suggest the relevant parts of the program in the 2023 link you posted were cancelled and certainly the surface fleet analysis seemed to rule out OPVs for this role.
We have been through it a few times but my speculation is that even a fully working OPV can’t defend itself from, or engage, mine laying submarines or defend itself from shore batteries so would need to be escorted in the mine warfare role
Yes, my understanding was the entire sea1905 program was cancelled, not just the tender from tranch 1 (an autonomous seek and destroy system). There was very little information provided at the time or since for the reason. So there is no containerised mine hunting system and no Huon replacement in the upcoming plan. I assume following this release, the sea1905 office was shut down and disbanded, but I don't have information on this.

The assumptions made at the time were that mine hunting is becomming contested and requires a platform that can defend itself. The other assumption was that platforms like the Mogami come with a very good mine hunting capability, meaning this function might become part of the GPF scope of work in the future, rather than by a small purpose built hull. All speculation at the moment. I should point out that mine hunting is not part of the released GPF specification at the moment, so if this is the plan it is being kept very secret.

Without the sea 1905 tranch 1 system, there is no pathway for an OPV, or any other vessel for that matter, to stand up a mine hunting capability. I can't see the Arafuras getting into this space at all. I will however note that the system on the Mogami could be employed on other platforms, its not specific to that hull.

I can't imagine the RAN not having an MCD capability, so one has to assume 1905 was cancelled for a better option.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
I may have referred to a program that has since ben stopped but this articles for the RAN suggests there is a current program for anti mine warfare that can be deployed from a variety of ships like the Hunter class and the Arafuras
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The OPV don't need to be mega armed. Realistically that isn't what they are for. They are for doing EEZ type stuff, their opposition is with civilian commercial/pirate ships. One of the great powers Australia has is good relations in the neighborhood and the ability to operate jointly with other forces in their waters. Having a OPV supports that. You stick Tomahawks and Sm6 on it, and now you have a war machine, which is then terrible at pulling over fishing boats, but also would be seen as an escalatory deployment into a region that is sensitive. The argument I have with the OPV is how many we need the priority and the focus, not really how heavily armed they need to be. As a war machine, an upgunned OPV is terrible at all its jobs.


Too bold IMO. They aren't really giving any room for a decision. I note that while the commonwealth can shut up the commercial people involved, they can't really shut up the Japanese government. The fact that the usually reserved and quiet Japanese government is saying all these things on record, shows you how they view the project. This is going to be the execution of Abes dream of a Australia-Japan project that ties the two together.

I have heard the Japanese government is totally committed to winning it. I'm not even sure they would take no for an answer. They have a real don't give up and don't give in with relation to this project. It is so, very much more than just a dozen small frigates. Japanese diplomacy sees it as essential for Japan-US relations and Japan-China relations and the future security and sovereignty and security of Japan. Which is why the Japanese are prioritising the RAN over their own defence force. A strong tangible alliance with Australia is worth more than two dozen destroyers.

Not because we have the most powerful defence force, but because of our influence and connection to the USA military and civilian leadership. Our capabilities with the Chinese is also noteworthy, as Australia has proven itself surprisingly resilient against Chinese economic coercion. Australia has proven it can work, and work well in a Trump world. While Canada is being threatened with tariffs and a possible invasion, NATO with a war with its biggest member over greenland, Australia stands up as a US ally with no peer. Able to stand right next to the US, but also seemingly fairly invisible when the US starts throwing mud. While resilient against Chinese pressure, but also US pressures.


It's so generous as to require deep and complete review. Australia should be always skeptical when it comes to defence, even with allies and friends. Also, there is no need for an urgently fast decision from Australia, because Japan is suppose to be building them anyway for herself. An early yes from Australia might then see Japan curtail her side of the program, and Australia yet carries the can for another orphaned development.

We have acquired a lot of defence systems and platforms over the years, who have all underdelivered on future support from the parent country/entity. I don't think that is likely with the case with Japan, but it is a big fear Australia has, particularly when dealing with non-US projects. Tiger, Hobarts, LHD, NH90, were all starved of logistics and technical development by their parent nation operators.

Also there is an Australian federal election coming up. And such a large big announcement needs to be timed perfectly.
  • That the government is still committed to hunter and other existing projects.
  • That defence is an increasingly important priority that can't be waylaid by the radical peacenik hippies. Both within labor and the Greens and independents, who labor and Liberal are fighting in key seats. This is one where Labor and Liberals are absolutely lock step in defence. Their common enemy is independants and greens. It honestly matters more that Labor and Liberals win seats and the independents and Greens don't - from a defence point of view. (a few exceptions, Katter for eg)
The fact that Donald Trump is back in power, America is at increasingly dramatically erratic and dysfunctional levels, that there are multiple active wars happening, means that Australians are genuinely worried about defence, so defence announcements are now universal vote winners, not vote killers. They promote party unity, not party division.

BTW there would be tremendous pressure on who ever wins, to perform. Like way above expectations, which is already sky high. They better be building these ships 28 hrs a day, 9 days a week 400 days a year. Quality must be magnificent, in every way. The performance and quality better be *WAY* above and the price I believe will be fixed and aggressive.

Everyone is going to be watching this, including the US and China (but also the koreans, the Germans all the rivals and customers etc). They better have a build program that is so good it impresses the US, and outrightly annoys or shakes China. I don't just mean the Japanese part of the build either. Japan is going to have to invade Western Australia and make things happen there locally on the ground. They won't be able to just hire a few local floaters who interview well, and bring over a CEO team from Japan and hope something happens. (*Cough Cough Attack class - Naval*) They are going to need resources and capable people local and from Japan. They are going to need political will and support. They are going to need to support local SME and local supply. This needs to be a strategic focus like Ford and General motors were for America in Australia. If war happens, this place needs to function...

Honestly I think the Germans are there as benchmarks and to keep things from getting silly. They can be used to create a realistic benchmark before people on the other two sides have a project that gets overtly ambitious. They are excellent for that role. Also those Germans go back to Germany and tell their political leadership what is happening in the Asia Pacific and on this project. I hope they go back and literally, physically, slap their political masters, tell them things are happening, and that Germany and Europe is living in their own fantasy bubble and are being left behind and irrelevant.
I think the greatest threat to Australian defence capability, as it has always been, is NIMBY, perceived cost/value for money, and people with other (expensive) priorities.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, my understanding was the entire sea1905 program was cancelled, not just the tender from tranch 1 (an autonomous seek and destroy system). There was very little information provided at the time or since for the reason. So there is no containerised mine hunting system and no Huon replacement in the upcoming plan. I assume following this release, the sea1905 office was shut down and disbanded, but I don't have information on this.

The assumptions made at the time were that mine hunting is becomming contested and requires a platform that can defend itself. The other assumption was that platforms like the Mogami come with a very good mine hunting capability, meaning this function might become part of the GPF scope of work in the future, rather than by a small purpose built hull. All speculation at the moment. I should point out that mine hunting is not part of the released GPF specification at the moment, so if this is the plan it is being kept very secret.

Without the sea 1905 tranch 1 system, there is no pathway for an OPV, or any other vessel for that matter, to stand up a mine hunting capability. I can't see the Arafuras getting into this space at all. I will however note that the system on the Mogami could be employed on other platforms, its not specific to that hull.

I can't imagine the RAN not having an MCD capability, so one has to assume 1905 was cancelled for a better option.
Mine hunting is a Mogami role.

Watch and wait, I expect we will see the a common system selected based on a new requirement set, driven by the capability of in-service platforms
 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
I think the greatest threat to Australian defence capability, as it has always been, is NIMBY, perceived cost/value for money, and people with other (expensive) priorities.
Australia can’t easily lift defence spending to a Trump-satisfying level | The Strategist

On that point I was reading this article this morning. It talks about what would need to occur to fund defence at the levels of 3.5% GDP. Key points as follows:
  • It would equate to $97B total annual Defence spend, or $40B more than current.
  • Would require either a 12% increase in personal taxes, a 4% increase in GST, a 10% additional company tax rate, a 40% cut in other programs, or a $40B per annum increase in debt.
  • For comparison, NDIS is currently about $46B. Health and aged care is about $120B per annum.
I am a person who wants to see defence spending increase, and would love to support it at 3.5%. It would be great to get all the gear we could ever want for that money. Given the impact on either taxation, debt or other expenditure programs, I can't see that happening outside of some great and imminent threat (it really needs a barbarians at the door situation).

I still think there will be pressure from Trump for us to increase our spending, so maybe something small, such as an earlier increase to 2.4% and a longer term commitment to 3% next decade. To note there would be zero way that an extra $40B could be spend in FY26, so an immediate increase is near impossible.

For an earlier increase to 2.4%, perhaps some infrastructure investments in bases brought forward (WA and NT in particular), or some extra missile orders (can never have enough SM2s), or higher wages (something that could happen immediately).
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Australia can’t easily lift defence spending to a Trump-satisfying level | The Strategist

On that point I was reading this article this morning. It talks about what would need to occur to fund defence at the levels of 3.5% GDP. Key points as follows:
  • It would equate to $97B total annual Defence spend, or $40B more than current.
  • Would require either a 12% increase in personal taxes, a 4% increase in GST, a 10% additional company tax rate, a 40% cut in other programs, or a $40B per annum increase in debt.
  • For comparison, NDIS is currently about $46B. Health and aged care is about $120B per annum.
I am a person who wants to see defence spending increase, and would love to support it at 3.5%. It would be great to get all the gear we could ever want for that money. Given the impact on either taxation, debt or other expenditure programs, I can't see that happening outside of some great and imminent threat (it really needs a barbarians at the door situation).

I still think there will be pressure from Trump for us to increase our spending, so maybe something small, such as an earlier increase to 2.4% and a longer term commitment to 3% next decade. To note there would be zero way that an extra $40B could be spend in FY26, so an immediate increase is near impossible.

For an earlier increase to 2.4%, perhaps some infrastructure investments in bases brought forward (WA and NT in particular), or some extra missile orders (can never have enough SM2s), or higher wages (something that could happen immediately).
You can’t ‘just’ buy missiles though, unless someone else is going to store them for us, like our “strategic” oil reserve, (held thankfully in Texas… :rolleyes:)

You need facilities (such as Orchard Hills) to handle large scale munitions storage.

A sign we were serious about ramping up to handle (possible) wartime quantities of such, would be substantial investment in either Orchard Hills or more likely separate, similar facilities in places those munitions are likely to be required…

One in Western Australia and one (or more) in NT / FNQ plus local, dispersed arming points for our major combat elements, would be a substantial and serious sign that we are getting serious about the threat in our region, even without expanding any ‘pointy’ things.

And so obviously we can add that to the list of things we are clearly not doing…
 
Top