Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Reptilia]

A bit of food for thought. Contract for more Arafuras with the specific purpose as mother ships to get them into theatre to launch the UUVs. Only give them a decent gun for some sort of self defence. They would be a force multiplier and it would allow us to optimise the Tier 1 and 2 hulls for war fighting. Carrying around Ghost Shark and Speartooth will degrade that ability.

CDI have no contract for more Arafuras, the keel for Nuship Carpentaria(the 6th OPV) was laid in Q3 last year and all the steel units were completed back in 2024. If they were going to build more after the fleet review, they would have continued building units from 2025. Heading into 2027 -at this point, we’d be better off building a new class than restarting Arafura production.
The program has not gone well clearly, 12 were to be in service by 2029, now just 6 in the same timeframe.

 

[iambuzzard]

CDI have no contract for more Arafuras, the keel for Nuship Carpentaria(the 6th OPV) was laid in Q3 last year and all the steel units were completed back in 2024. If they were going to build more after the fleet review, they would have continued building units from 2025. Heading into 2027 -at this point, we’d be better off building a new class than restarting Arafura production.
The program has not gone well clearly, 12 were to be in service by 2029, now just 6 in the same timeframe.

What would be a suitable hull for that capability? Something in production without Australianization . A proven design that can defend itself if it gets too close to a hot zone. Government and defence REALLY have to hedge their bets here. We don't have lead time any more. Just grab something off the shelf, slap on the deployment gear for the UUVs, and go. Like yesterday. We are sleepwalking into disaster. And give them a b****y gun and close in SAMs.

 

[old faithful]

What would be a suitable hull for that capability? Something in production without Australianization . A proven design that can defend itself if it gets too close to a hot zone. Government and defence REALLY have to hedge their bets here. We don't have lead time any more. Just grab something off the shelf, slap on the deployment gear for the UUVs, and go. Like yesterday. We are sleepwalking into disaster. And give them a b****y gun and close in SAMs.

We both know thats not going to happen.
Its probably the best option we have until the Virginas arrrive though.

 

[Reptilia]

The successor to our current Patrol Boat/OPV will probably be a multi mission OCV, we were getting 20 of them until the Turnbull government downgraded the program.

 

[SammyC]

The successor to our current Patrol Boat/OPV will probably be a multi mission OCV, we were getting 20 of them until the Turnbull government downgraded the program.

Agree, the next generation of vessels will be fundamentally different outcomes, across the board.

We should remember that the ghost shark is supposed to have a range in the order of about 3,000 km. It doesn't need much infrastructure to operate. It doesn't even need to be carried around much. It could be recharged from very simple shore facilities, such as a civilian boat ramp with a ute and a portable genset. It doesn't need to be taken out of the water for recharging.

I could even envisage a small surface charging drone that charges them at sea. All of this fully unmanned. Perhaps they come back ashore every three months or so for cleaning and servicing.

My understanding of the bluebottle fleet is that it does not have a supporting mother ship at all, it is entirely managed from shore, is extensively autonomous and they stay at sea for very long periods. No reason to think that a fleet of ghost sharks would function differently.

So the point is that these things don't need motherships. They don't need local control. They don't need humans nearby. So by extension they don't need LHDs, they don't need OPVs, they don't need patrol boats.

And they can form a very effective area denial to a hostile force. I would suggest that a 100 armed ghost sharks could comfortably shut down a million square kms of ocean to other submarines and surface ships without much hassle. And this is just a part of the subsurface element. Combine it with bluebottles and sea floor hydrophones, plus various aerial drone assets and it becomes all encompasing.

Back to the original point, when drones have this level of persistence, lethality, detection and autonomy, which I would view will be at least the case by 2030, probably earlier, what do we need our crewed surface ships to do.

That's not to say crewed ships have no place, just I see the mothership, transport ship or command ship concept lasting like compact discs did.

 

[StevoJH]

The successor to our current Patrol Boat/OPV will probably be a multi mission OCV, we were getting 20 of them until the Turnbull government downgraded the program.

You mean like the ones Transfield proposed in the 1990's?

I can't find any information about them online, I remember seeing something a few years ago.

Google did find a post by @Volkodav elsewhere on the internet about them though......

 

[Reptilia]

The Vard Vigilance 105(Canadian Continental Corvette offering) looks to be close to meeting all needs for Australia but is probably way too expensive as a tier 3 ship.
3-4 Sakura class off the shelf and fitted with a small cea radar might be cheaper.

 

[seaspear]

Re the ships to carry Ghost shark for deployments with the lhd if they are stored inside and launched from stern via some cradle ,its unlikely that a satellite will spot such an operation or even know the craft were being carried as opposed to craft stored on deck one day and not several hours later ,,Ghost Shark has top speed of seven knots ,so it might be handy to not allow to be known its being carried or area its being launched ,I believe the Ghost Shark is to large to be deployed from internal bay of the Hunter class frigate perhaps a smaller one .

 

[Sandson41]

The successor to our current Patrol Boat/OPV will probably be a multi mission OCV, we were getting 20 of them until the Turnbull government downgraded the program.

You mean like the ones Transfield proposed in the 1990's?

I can't find any information about them online, I remember seeing something a few years ago.

Google did find a post by @Volkodav elsewhere on the internet about them though......

The Navy magazine of July to September 1996 has a nice little article on them.

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf

NAVY MAGAZINE

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NAVY LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA Published 1920 to 1932 then continuously from April 1938. SUBSCRIBE AND BECOME A MEMBER TODAY! Sign up for Navy League Membership and receive our quarterly Navy News magazine for free. and you will also be kept up to date with all of our...

navyleague.org.au

(Same edition also covers the commissioning of HMAS Anzac.)

They were certainly ambitious designs - very heavily armed. Probably not very attractive to the government of the day back in the peaceful 90s, what with the 'end of history' and all that...

 

[iambuzzard]

The Navy magazine of July to September 1996 has a nice little article on them.

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf

NAVY MAGAZINE

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NAVY LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA Published 1920 to 1932 then continuously from April 1938. SUBSCRIBE AND BECOME A MEMBER TODAY! Sign up for Navy League Membership and receive our quarterly Navy News magazine for free. and you will also be kept up to date with all of our...

navyleague.org.au

(Same edition also covers the commissioning of HMAS Anzac.)

They were certainly ambitious designs - very heavily armed. Probably not very attractive to the government of the day back in the peaceful 90s, what with the 'end of history' and all that...

Imagine 20 of those added to the fleet. What was the crew envisaged for them. What I like is the fact they had a hanger.

 

[seaspear]

I did post this on another thread nd thought it may have been applicable to the Royal Australian Navy as a potential low cost alternative to more destroyers that could be produced much quicker

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/revisit-arsenal-ship-barge

 

[SammyC]

The Navy magazine of July to September 1996 has a nice little article on them.

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_58_Part2-1996.pdf

NAVY MAGAZINE

OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF NAVY LEAGUE OF AUSTRALIA Published 1920 to 1932 then continuously from April 1938. SUBSCRIBE AND BECOME A MEMBER TODAY! Sign up for Navy League Membership and receive our quarterly Navy News magazine for free. and you will also be kept up to date with all of our...

navyleague.org.au

(Same edition also covers the commissioning of HMAS Anzac.)

They were certainly ambitious designs - very heavily armed. Probably not very attractive to the government of the day back in the peaceful 90s, what with the 'end of history' and all that...

So these would have been built from about 2005, with the last I suppose around 2010-2015. Would have a comfortable decade of life left now. Hindsight decisions that could have been useful. Would have been a nice follow on from the ANZACs and might have then meant the AWDs were built in Williamstown, with the Hunters (or something similar) then following.

I have to ask though, what in 1995 was driving a consideration of replacing a tiny Fremantle patrol boat with an OCV like this. Why at the peak of the peace time dividend would this even be on the table.

 

[spoz]

Williamstown didn’t have the space to build AWDs or Hunters, they would have needed to build across Nelson Place, expand to the north west across Ann Street, and demolish the pub (and a number of other businesses)

 

[SammyC]

Williamstown didn’t have the space to build AWDs or Hunters, they would have needed to build across Nelson Place, expand to the north west across Ann Street, and demolish the pub (and a number of other businesses)

Interesting.

With that in mind, lets say Williamstown had a follow on class to the ANZACCs like the above mentioned OCV, and was an active yard at the time of the AWD project.

Does that mean that Osborne may still have been necessary, and Williamstown would still have been closed.

 

[Stampede]

If doable, makes anything with a well dock suddenly hot property. Makes LHD Trieste look even more fantastically well-rounded than it already was.

So these would have been built from about 2005, with the last I suppose around 2010-2015. Would have a comfortable decade of life left now. Hindsight decisions that could have been useful. Would have been a nice follow on from the ANZACs and might have then meant the AWDs were built in Williamstown, with the Hunters (or something similar) then following.

I have to ask though, what in 1995 was driving a consideration of replacing a tiny Fremantle patrol boat with an OCV like this. Why at the peak of the peace time dividend would this even be on the table.

A good question
I always see defence spending as insurance to hopefully avert conflict.
Force composition is an important part of the mix
The OCV concept for navy is an interesting concept for any era and I guess this also applies back in the 90s.
I can only speculate that consideration was being given for something that can do both the constabulary role and still have some war fighting capability.
What was proposed was probably trying to cram too much into a vessel of that size.
Mind you ,many such OCV / Corvette/ light frigates or what ever designation you wish to choose, do exist today.

I very much wished we had gone with a 2000t 90m vessel post the Fremantle class in lieu of the later Fremantle and Cape Classes

An OPV with proper aviation and a medium sized main gun.

It would be interesting to see how such a class of vessel would have performed and for what roles over the last 25 years.
What build numbers for the class and how would that have impacted the destroyer / frigate force we have today and propose for the future.

Again a prudent question

Cheers S

 

[spoz]

Interesting.

With that in mind, lets say Williamstown had a follow on class to the ANZACCs like the above mentioned OCV, and was an active yard at the time of the AWD project.

Does that mean that Osborne may still have been necessary, and Williamstown would still have been closed.

if you wanted to build ships the size of Hobarts and Hunters you would have had to find another location. It didn’t have to be Osborne, although that had the advantage of being a clear site allowing easy (and relatively cheap) construction of a modern yard and was good from a political perspective. But it could have been Newcastle, or even conceivably Henderson.

 

[iambuzzard]

if you wanted to build ships the size of Hobarts and Hunters you would have had to find another location. It didn’t have to be Osborne, although that had the advantage of being a clear site allowing easy (and relatively cheap) construction of a modern yard and was good from a political perspective. But it could have been Newcastle, or even conceivably Henderson.

You will never see major shipbuilding in Victoria again. The industrial and political environment has destroyed it. It's a pity because the ANZACS and the FFGs before them were well built ships, and credit to the tradies who built them. It's a pity.

 

[seaspear]

You will never see major shipbuilding in Victoria again. The industrial and political environment has destroyed it. It's a pity because the ANZACS and the FFGs before them were well built ships, and credit to the tradies who built them. It's a pity.

Re political enviroment of some of these states Im not sure if AUKUS submarines will be named after those capital cities ,certainly visiting nuclear nuclear submarines to those cities could cause health problems like convulsions, high blood pressure and convulsions to some individuals

 

[SammyC]

I did post this on another thread nd thought it may have been applicable to the Royal Australian Navy as a potential low cost alternative to more destroyers that could be produced much quicker

https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2026/january/revisit-arsenal-ship-barge

I note the article says the sweet spot for an arsenal barge is between 12-48 tubes, as the best optimisation towards distributed lethality. That matches to the RAN's 32 cell LOCSV concept which arose from the 2024 surface fleet review, and was still included in the 2026 IIP.

So it is still in vogue, just it is moving to an autonomous navigation/propulsion platform, rather than a crewed system, and I think will be more numerous than 6 once it has matured.

 

[iambuzzard]

Re political enviroment of some of these states Im not sure if AUKUS submarines will be named after those capital cities ,certainly visiting nuclear nuclear submarines to those cities could cause health problems like convulsions, high blood pressure and convulsions to some individuals

You mean the Greens? I'll withhold my opinion on them.