Fantasy RAN thread (Surface Ships & LHDs only)

[CJR]

In addition to the quad packed missiles, it begs the question- do we really need ultra powerful and delicate sensor /radar towers searching out to 400+km, if we will likely still be engaging fleets at visual range, and if we won't have missiles which can reach out to 400km? (I guess it's possible to use cec for this reason)

One factor is that long ranged anti-ship missiles are usually only sea skimmers for the terminal phase of their flight (low altitude equals more drag equals either shorter range, lower speed, trading off bang for fuel or building a bigger missile). For instance the air launched version of the BrahMos is (per publicly available figures) designed to cruise at ~14,000m before descending to ~15m for the final leg into the target. Similar arguments apply for air launched short to mid-range antiship missiles, but with the restrictions shifted to the aircraft rather than the missile.

Being able to see out to 400km means you'll probably be able to see such missile while they're in cruise phase (and if air-launched, likely see the aircraft responsible). Sure, you'll loose 'em from once they descend to sea skimming height until they hit the horizon, but it's still the difference between 60 seconds warning full stop vs 10 minutes warning before the critical 60 seconds...

Edit: Of cause, this doesn't imply you need long ranged air search radars on every ship, but it does show that having at least one long ranged radar with each task group is pretty bloody essential.

 

[Boagrius]

Those are still years out. What use have they been the last 40 years then? Genuine question

I wouldn't be so sure about that. DF-21D, DF-26, DF-100, DF-17 and CH-AS-X-13 are all out there now, nevermind when the Hunters enter service.

As for historically, numerous supersonic Soviet ASMs used high diving flight profiles that warranted the likes of SPY-1; Kh-15 and Kh-22 for example. Some of the sea skimming ones even had on-board jammers/countermeasures that had to be overcome IIRC.

 

[ngatimozart]

Those are still years out. What use have they been the last 40 years then? Genuine question

Are they? We are not planning for a war fought in the last 40 years, but for one that will be fought in the near future. Are you privy to the weaponary of the PLAN, PLA-RF, PLAAF, PLANAF, VVS, VMF, and others that aren't in the public domain? We won't be fighting the Battle of Jutland, nor Trafalgar, but a high tech battle which will involve supersonic and hypersonic AShM, direct energy weapons, probably rail guns, and other nasties that aren’t in the public domain. Don't forget the nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponary as well. So I think that you need to look at what is probable rather than what has been stock standard for non near peer war.

 

[OPSSG]

I wouldn't be so sure about that. DF-21D, DF-26, DF-100, DF-17 and CH-AS-X-13 are all out there now, nevermind when the Hunters enter service.

Let me add to your discussion by sharing what I previously posted in the China geo-strategic thread, last year — in DT, for years, we have been talking about protect (ASW or anti-air warfare) or prosecute (with submarines or anti-surface warfare with missiles like LRSM). No one is planning to take them head-on without allies.

The PLA(N)’s surface force of over 450 ships can carry a variety of anti-ship and anti-radiation missiles to force an Australian Naval Task group in the 2030s, to exercise emissions control, while striking from over the horizon, with one barrage of the DF series of missiles. Even the very capable JMSDF with their 4 huge escort fleets will struggle in the 2030s.

Are they? We are not planning for a war fought in the last 40 years, but for one that will be fought in the near future.

We won't be fighting the Battle of Jutland, nor Trafalgar, but a high tech battle which will involve supersonic and hypersonic AShM… and other nasties that aren’t in the public domain.

China’s land reclamation in the South China Sea is aimed at pushing its own sensor and weapons range so far into the Pacific (including the use of hypersonic missiles) that it becomes impossible for American forces to touch Chinese positions without risk to its fleet.

This is to gain freedom of action to assert its own interests against Taiwan. The only contingency PLA(N) can not manage as a 335-ship fleet, in 2020, would be a distant blockade by the US Navy. Capt (retd.) James Fanell has estimated that by 2030, the Chinese fleet will have a surface force of over 450 ships and a submarine force of about 110 boats. China could attempt to counter by increasing self-reliance or the careful establishment of a string of strategic positions in peacetime. Both are already core elements of current Chinese policy, namely “China 2049” and the “Belt and Road Initiative.”

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1256410095610544128

Destroyers, frigates, carriers and bombers of the PLA(N)

1. Nanchang, the first Type 055 ship of the class, began construction in 2014 at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai, and was commissioned on 12 January 2020. There will be at least 6 of these 180 metre long, 13,000 ton destroyers/cruisers that are armed with 112 HHQ-9B surface-to- air missiles.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1285777251758292993

2. Kunming, the first 157 metre long, 7,500 ton Type 52D destroyer was commissioned on 21 Mar 2014 and is the first Chinese surface combatant to use canister-based universal VLS, as opposed to the concentric type VLS. 64 HHQ-9B surface-to- air missiles are carried, with 10 of this ship’s class being constructed (with 13 being planned according to the above graphic). Having entered military service on 12 Jan 2020, Zibo is the PLA Navy’s first ship of the improved version of the Type 052DL. This new Type 052DL is 161 metre long, with an extended flight deck (to carry the Z-20 helicopter) and a new long-range radar on its mast. The PLA(N) has plans for up to 13 Type 052Ds and 12 Type 52DLs in the near future.

3. Lanzhou and Haikou, the first two 155 metre long, 7,000 ton Type 52C destroyers were laid down at the Jiangnan Shipyard in Shanghai in 2002, and entered service in 2004 and 2005 respectively. The other 4 were of the class, Changchun, Zhengzhou, Jinan and Xi’an were built much later, around 2013, as the shipyard that built them was relocated.

4. Guangzhou and Wuhan, 155 metre long, 6,500 ton Type 052B destroyers were the first two Chinese-built warship capable of area air defence and entered service in 2002.

5. Binzhou, the first of 30 frigates of this class. These 4,053 ton Type 054A and 054A+ frigates are 134.1 metre long, armed with 32 HQ-16 or HQ-16B air defence missiles, was first built at the Guangzhou-based Huangpu Shipyard in 2005. An much improved variant beginning with the 17th unit has the seven-barrelled Type 730 CIWS replaced by the more capable 11-barrelled Type 1130, and is unofficially referred as Type 54A+. Another reported improvement over the original Type 054A includes the incorporation of a towed array sonar and present an overmatch against the capabilities of the Taiwanese Kang Ding class frigates. These 054A frigates are bigger and better armed than Singapore’s Formidable class frigates, who are the most heavily armed frigates that are based on the La Fayette design.

6. Ma'anshan, and Wenzhou, were the only Type 054 frigates built in 2003 and were commissioned in 2005. These outdated 134 metre long, 3,900 ton frigates were armed with the inferior HQ-7 (when compared to the HQ-16 and HQ-16B air defence missiles of the Type 054A). The Type 054 who are armed with the HQ-7 (similar to the French Crotale) resembled the French La Fayette-class frigates in shape and displacement and were intended to match the capabilities of the Taiwanese Kang Ding class frigates.

7. Right now in 2021, the PLA(N), operates 2 carriers, Liaoning (with 26 J15s) and Shandong (with 32 J15s) and a large fleet of Xian H-6 bombers armed with the YJ-12 anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM). The danger posed by the YJ-12 comes from its range of 400 km, making it the longest-ranged ACBM ever engineered, and its ability to travel at high rates of speed (up to Mach 3). These ASCMs when launched from the air, give the PLA(N) plenty of long range strike options. Just imagine how powerful the Chinese Navy will be by 2032, when it has 3 carriers and it begins to modernise its bomber fleet. Given its large H-6J and H-6G bomber fleet, the PLA(N) is more than its carriers — each of which carries 8 YJ-12 supersonic ASCMs.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1288870200356544513

8. A PLA(N), carrier battle group is heavily armed, with about 304 cells for air defence missiles. The destroyers serving as escorts also carry numerous vertically-launched YJ-18 ASCMs, CJ-10 land attack cruise missiles, and the YJ-83 anti-ship missiles. The PLA(N)’s Yu-6 torpedo completed development in 2005 and is carried on their destroyers and frigates. At speeds of sixty-five knots, the Yu-6 is faster than the listed speeds of the Mk 48 Mod 6 ADCAP. The ships in a Chinese carrier battle group would typically consist of:

• 1 aircraft carrier (with 26 or 32 J15s)
• 1 Type 055, Renhai class cruiser with 112 air defence missiles
• 2 Type 052D or 052DL Luyang III class destroyers with 64 air defence missiles on each destroyer
• 2 Type 054A or 054A+ frigates, with 32 air defence missiles on each Jiangkai II frigate
• a Type 901 support ship

 

[ngatimozart]

@OPSSG by 2032 I would suspect that the PLAN will have 3 - 4 CV in at least 2 CBG and building or sea trialing its first CVN. The Liaoling will be retired and probably a museum ship by then. Real trouble is we don't know what form their CV doctrine is going to take. I would think that it would be similar to the USN one because I believe that the PLA-GF have structured their forces similar to a US model. It would also make sense because the USN is the predominant CV navy and they are the benchmark, whether you like it or not.

 

[FoxtrotRomeo999]

OK, how's about a fantasy anti-submarine, anti-shipping OPV. The Indonesian Navy are developing a new class of two ships that (probably will) do just that Indonesia configures 90 m OPVs for anti-submarine, anti-ship operations Indonesian Shipyard Cuts Steel on New OPVs for TNI AL - Naval News . OK, a tad larger than the Arafura class (90m as compared to 80m) but they will have an OTH capability (2x4 missiles). Tac Talks: Putting the ‘War’ back into Minor War Vessels: utilising the Arafura Class to reinvigorate high intensity warfighting in the Patrol Force | Royal Australian Navy has a serving RAN officer pushing for the Arafura Class to be a minor warship not a constabulary vessel, by the addition of OTH engagement capabilities.

"Rendering the 12 OPVs and their crews to the status of ‘constabulary only’ is a waste of precious military resources when it is known that it can be armed with guided weapons. Having warfare specialists who have had continuous exposure to high end warfighting since gaining the BWC is far more advantageous to the fleet than having officers set aside their warfare knowledge to embark on constabulary duties. The introduction of the Arafura Class OPV offers the opportunity for the RAN to improve its strike power and enhance the lethality of its people. We need only take the opportunity before the capability of the fleet is tested in combat."​

 

[Boagrius]

Let me add to your discussion by sharing what I previously posted in the China geo-strategic thread, last year — in DT, for years, we have been talking about protect (ASW or anti-air warfare) or prosecute (with submarines or anti-surface warfare with missiles like LRSM). No one is planning to take them head-on without allies.

Thank you for the (trademark) thorough reply. I have a some additional thoughts here:

- CSBA have written extensively on the subject of how the USN can successfully operate against the PRC's ever growing A2/AD capabilities in coming decades. One of the emerging themes seems to be that USN aircraft carriers would need to operate somewhere around 1000nm from the Chinese coast to keep them out of reach of the bulk of hostile anti-ship weapons, while remaining close enough to the theatre for embarked aircraft to make a relevant contribution to the war effort.



Taking Back the Seas: Transforming the U.S. Surface Fleet for Decision-Centric Warfare | CSBA (p15)

- Note that the 1000nm mark would still place them in range of the DF-26 ASBM variant, the DF-17 HGV, DF-100 heavyweight HCM and the H6 fleet with its arsenal of YJ-12 and YJ-100 ASCMs, alongside the CH-AS-X-13 ALBM. Nevertheless, the concentration of these weapons is likely to be lower than for shorter range systems (dictating smaller, less sustainable salvos) and the problem of providing reliable targeting data for them also more challenging for the PLAN/PLAAF. For example, ISR aircraft would be faced with the USN's well practiced defence-in-depth, ISR satellites could be degraded or destroyed with EW and SM-3 respectively, and fixed OTH radars sites could be subjected to cruise and hypersonic weapon attack in the early phases of the conflict.

- This is not to say the concept is a panacea - USN vessels would still have to fight to survive and losses would be incurred, but this does appear to provide the USN with a way to operate under an acceptable level of risk.

- The threat from the H6 with the YJ-12 is a serious one, but it is conceptually not unlike the Soviet Tu-22/Kh-22 combination.


https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pdf (p77)

- While the US no longer has a fleet defence interceptor like the F14, efforts do appear to be underway to revitalise the outer air battle concept. The latest version of the AMRAAM - the AIM120D - seems to be capable of reaching as far if not further than the old AIM-54 given the right launch conditions, while an air-launched SM-6 variant would extend this reach significantly further. The introduction of JATM on the Rhino and F-35C will inevitably help as well.

- So, while the YJ-12 is likely to be a highly capable missile, it strikes me as being hamstrung by the large signature profile of the H-6 launch platform. While the missile's range would keep the H-6 out of reach of the USN's current SM-6 arsenal (although this could easily change with the arrival of the SM-6 Blk IB), it would not be sufficient to keep it safe from defending USN BARCAPs. With a massive radar cross section subjecting the H-6 to early detection and targeting from APY-9, SPY-1/6 and APG79/81, an attacking strike package would require extensive fighter escort to blow a hole through the defending BARCAP first. Perhaps this is where the J-20 would come into the picture - time shall tell.

- Additionally, the extensive use of unmanned vessels to act as decoys, ISR and counter-ISR assets for their manned counterparts was proposed. This strikes me as quite a promising concept that could prove to be a significant force (and survivability) multiplier for the USN and its allied navies in the Pacific.


Taking Back the Seas: Transforming the U.S. Surface Fleet for Decision-Centric Warfare | CSBA (p46)

- Someone in the USN must have been listening, because the above idea is consistent with USN force planning today:

- I believe the above is important to consider in the RAN's context, because it paints an informative picture of the kind of environment that the RAN will have to operate in going forward. If the USN plans to operate its carriers from 1000nm away, I struggle to see the RAN sending its own MFUs any closer than that. This means that the prevailing threat will not be coming from PLAN SAGs (and definitely not at close range), but from large and exquisite coastal (DF26, DF17, DF100) air (CH-AS-X-13, YJ-100, YJ-12) and sub (YJ-18) launched weapons.

- These weapons will not remain technologically static in the interim - the PRC will surely continue to refine them with signature reduction measures, EW enhancements and various other penetration aids where possible. New weapons will inevitably emerge as well. All of this aggregates into a situation where our vessels will need the best sensors possible just to stay alive, let alone contribute. To short change them with a sensor fit-out optimised to merely extend to the radar horizon would be (excuse the pun) short sighted, and fail to take into account the threat environment and CONOPS that likely lies ahead of vessels like the Hunter class FFG.

 

[Redlands18]

OK, how's about a fantasy anti-submarine, anti-shipping OPV. The Indonesian Navy are developing a new class of two ships that (probably will) do just that Indonesia configures 90 m OPVs for anti-submarine, anti-ship operations Indonesian Shipyard Cuts Steel on New OPVs for TNI AL - Naval News . OK, a tad larger than the Arafura class (90m as compared to 80m) but they will have an OTH capability (2x4 missiles). Tac Talks: Putting the ‘War’ back into Minor War Vessels: utilising the Arafura Class to reinvigorate high intensity warfighting in the Patrol Force | Royal Australian Navy has a serving RAN officer pushing for the Arafura Class to be a minor warship not a constabulary vessel, by the addition of OTH engagement capabilities.

"Rendering the 12 OPVs and their crews to the status of ‘constabulary only’ is a waste of precious military resources when it is known that it can be armed with guided weapons. Having warfare specialists who have had continuous exposure to high end warfighting since gaining the BWC is far more advantageous to the fleet than having officers set aside their warfare knowledge to embark on constabulary duties. The introduction of the Arafura Class OPV offers the opportunity for the RAN to improve its strike power and enhance the lethality of its people. We need only take the opportunity before the capability of the fleet is tested in combat."​

The Arafura class have a top speed of 21kt, that would put them at a distinct disadvantage against Corvettes and OCVs and unlike the Destroyers and Frigates, there would be the possibility of fighting at visual range in a Gun on Gun fight and a Vessel with a top speed of 21kt is always going to be at a disadvantage up against one at 30kt. The likely hood is that such a fight would take place far closer to a Enemy's home base then ours. They can up arm there OPVs at the expense of endurance, we can't.
IMHO Corvettes/OCVs/OPVs are a compromise, you can either give them a heavy armament(Israeli SAAR series is a great example) or you can give them decent endurance but you can't have both. And in Australia its a long way from anywhere to anywhere and resupply and repair shops are very few and far between.

 

[Ananda]

how's about a fantasy anti-submarine, anti-shipping OPV. The Indonesian Navy are developing a new class of two ships that (probably will) do just that

As I have posted in Indonesia Navy thread, that OPV is just a name only. There's nothing in the specs that can't shown it's actually a Corvette. Just like @Redlands18 put you have to choose either want to have long range patrol endurance or more extensive Weapons Combat suit on the boats/ships that size. Can't be both.

 

[ddxx]

If there's a desire to increase the fleet size in terms of surface combatants, wouldn't it make most sense to explore a different platform to the Arafura in meeting a 'small' surface combatant requirement? Potentially a platform which could be explored in collaboration with NZ?

In such a scenario, given the aforementioned consideration of balancing range and weapons, in our region you'd arguably need a GP Frigate / Light Frigate platform rather than a Corvette or OPV platform to meet those requirements and have flexibility throughout the life of the vessel for both high and low roles.

 

[Unric]

Heck, if you go the light frigate route you might as well order the type 31. After all, Indonesia is likely getting some and the type 31's a frontrunner for RNZN (assuming they buy "war"-ships). . Seriously though, money, crew, etc are still finite despite the increases so although it'd be nice, I think RAN would be lucky to afford some warlike Arafuras.

 

[ngatimozart]

Heck, if you go the light frigate route you might as well order the type 31. After all, Indonesia is likely getting some and the type 31's a frontrunner for RNZN (assuming they buy "war"-ships). . Seriously though, money, crew, etc are still finite despite the increases so although it'd be nice, I think RAN would be lucky to afford some warlike Arafuras.

The RNZN ANZAC Class frigate replacements will not be the RN Type 31 which is nothing more than an an oversized expensive OPV. A total waste of a bloody good design. It's a classic case of what not to do with a frigate design.

If they go with the design it would be the Babcock OMT Arrowhead 140 which is basically the Iver Huitfeld Class design. The fitout would most likely be different to a Eurocentric fitout apart from the Sea Ceptor. I would hope that they would go with the RCN CSC fitout apart from some minor changes. Definitely keep the SPY-7 and AEGIS.

WRT to the Arafura Class how many times do the Australian DEFPROS and the Moderators have to tell people that the Arafura Class are OPVs armed with a single autocannon and a couple of 50 cal.

Do you you have trouble understanding that or would you like a holiday from all RAN related threads to think about it? The choice is yours. Think carefully.

 

[ngatimozart]

If there's a desire to increase the fleet size in terms of surface combatants, wouldn't it make most sense to explore a different platform to the Arafura in meeting a 'small' surface combatant requirement? Potentially a platform which could be explored in collaboration with NZ?

In such a scenario, given the aforementioned consideration of balancing range and weapons, in our region you'd arguably need a GP Frigate / Light Frigate platform rather than a Corvette or OPV platform to meet those requirements and have flexibility throughout the life of the vessel for both high and low roles.

One of the platforms that we are suggesting for the RNZN is the Babcock OMT Arrowhead 140 which is basically the Iver Huitfeld Class design. The fitout would most likely be different to a Eurocentric fitout apart from the Sea Ceptor. I would hope that they would go with the RCN CSC fitout apart from some minor changes. Definitely keep the SPY-7 and AEGIS. One of the problems that the RNZN has is that it's a small navy with a plethora of different platform types.

What is being suggested is a high / lo mix of the Arrowhead 140 hulls with the frigate variant as I have suggested above and a RDN Absalon variation without the vehicle deck capability. It wouldn't require the SPY-7 and AEGIS or the 127mm gun but instead could have a sensor fit similar to the current RNZN ANZAC Class frigates, a 76mm Super Rapid gun, and a 30 or 40mm gun mounted above the hangar. We could develop a modular system with a ISO 20ft TEU footprint along with the ISO deck securing fittings and NATO standard connectors for the data, power, coolant, hydraulic lines / hoses etc., to the shipboard systems; basically plug and play. That way if it's required can increase the weapons capability in less than 24 hours. These vessels would replace the OPV / IPV fleet and offer significant savings because of commonality with the frigates. Like the frigates they would have a 9,000nm range.

So if that plan is accepted I don't think that a common patrol platform between Australia and NZ would occur. Secondly there would also be different sea keeping specs required as well because the RNZN would want a platform specced for the Southern Ocean wave climate, not one that would be specced for waters to the north of Australia, where the wave climate is different. The NZDF DTA are now gaining data on the Southern Ocean wave climate over time and the significance wave heights and periods are larger than previously assumed. So that makes a difference in ship design parameters.

 

[ddxx]

One of the platforms that we are suggesting for the RNZN is the Babcock OMT Arrowhead 140 which is basically the Iver Huitfeld Class design. The fitout would most likely be different to a Eurocentric fitout apart from the Sea Ceptor. I would hope that they would go with the RCN CSC fitout apart from some minor changes. Definitely keep the SPY-7 and AEGIS.

I definitely agree, however, the RCN isn’t procuring the AH140, they’re procuring the BAE GCS i.e. the base for the Type 26 and Hunter Class?

 

[ngatimozart]

I definitely agree, however, the RCN isn’t procuring the AH140, they’re procuring the BAE GCS i.e. the base for the Type 26 and Hunter Class?

Yep so? Nothing to stop most of their weapons and sensor fitout being used on a similar sized hull, as long as the power requirements are met. The hardest part will be the integration, so you get Lockheed to do because they are the integration specialists for the RCN CSC project.

 

[vonnoobie]

If we wanted something that could give a bit more punch or as stated by other a GP/Light Frigate what exactly are people hoping such a ship could do? How many are people imagining we would aquire and what sort of atleast in peacetime crew complement?

If just transferring equal number of crew across from the Arafura to such a ship such as the AH140 you have the bodies to man all of 4.8 of those ships at minimum manning.. Im sure we could make it up to an even 5 but thats still 7 hulls less. if you wanted 1 for 1 at minimum manning you would need an extra 720 crew.. Account for the fact those crew and ships will need increased supporting elements ashore which generally in 1.5 to 2 bodies ashore for every body on a ship we could be needing 1,800 - 2,160 extra personnel in the navy. If you want them fully manned your looking at 3,600 - 4,320 extra personnel in the Navy. Basically enough personnel to fully man and support our future nuclear boats and then some.

Much as I would love such a force just dont have the bodies to crew them without cutting about 60% -75% of the numbers of ships. At which point for 3-5 AH140 we could get another 2-3 Hunters.

 

[Gryphinator]

WRT Arafura class, given recent developments on other projects nothing can be ruled out and everyone needs to be a bit more open minded, especially on a thread that has fantasy in its title...

 

[Unric]

The RNZN ANZAC Class frigate replacements will not be the RN Type 31 which is nothing more than an an oversized expensive OPV. A total waste of a bloody good design. It's a classic case of what not to do with a frigate design.

If they go with the design it would be the Babcock OMT Arrowhead 140 which is basically the Iver Huitfeld Class design. The fitout would most likely be different to a Eurocentric fitout apart from the Sea Ceptor. I would hope that they would go with the RCN CSC fitout apart from some minor changes. Definitely keep the SPY-7 and AEGIS.

WRT to the Arafura Class how many times do the Australian DEFPROS and the Moderators have to tell people that the Arafura Class are OPVs armed with a single autocannon and a couple of 50 cal.

Do you you have trouble understanding that or would you like a holiday from all RAN related threads to think about it? The choice is yours. Think carefully.

Easy cobber. Sorry if I caused confusion by referring to the "type 31" instead of arrowhead 140. As you point out it has a lot more potential than the RNs version. But I wasn't commenting on Indonesia's or the RNZN's next frigates (aside from a little tongue in cheek crack at NZ defence spending). I was really trying to make the same point vonnoobie made about extra resourcing - although he made it better than I.

 

[Stampede]

WRT Arafura class, given recent developments on other projects nothing can be ruled out and everyone needs to be a bit more open minded, especially on a thread that has fantasy in its title...

An observation re what we can and cannot do.

Whether it's the Arafura Class, another class of ship, or for that matter any other bit of kit in the ADF ,what we can achieve is based upon many things.
A couple, are population size and economic capacity.
In peace time we allocate defence funding for today's needs and plan for whats ahead.
A couple of world Wars demonstrate how nations like Australia can ramp up defence capacity in material and human capital.
With 25 milion people and a large economy we have enough potential to do much much much more should the need arrive.

We have potential and scope many other nations don't.

Therefore I always have a bit of a smile when people say we can't achieve seemingly small increments of capital and labour investment on platforms we either have or are investing in.

We could double in size more most units and their respective equipment in the ADF should the need arrive.
The cost would be enormous, but not insurmountable.
It however take a lot of time in this technology age.

For a nation at peace there are better priorities.

So if you want to up gun the Arafura's or alternatively choose a more robust up gunned Corvette / light frigate we certainly have the potential to do it.

Should we / could we /do we is based on what it brings to the ADF.
Either it's additional expenditure or do we rob Peter to pay Paul from other defence projects.

I feel the concept is good and additional funding should be allocated.

Use the the initial build Arafuras' for their intended constabulary role with the view they swing across to the Survey/MCM role as the later and larger class of Corvettes come into service.

A vessel to fill the middle ground between an OPV and a Destroyer.
It's an option we don't have and yet believe need going forward.

What it looks like have the debate, but for the sake of time it should fit within the production needs of the current build schedule.
Thats a total of 21 OPV / Survey / MCM this decade.

Suggest the design will have much commonality with the existing Arafura Class.
Lursens OPV 90 comes to mind.

Modest additional military capability achieved within this decade.

Thoughts


Regards S

 

[ngatimozart]

Easy cobber. Sorry if I caused confusion by referring to the "type 31" instead of arrowhead 140. As you point out it has a lot more potential than the RNs version. But I wasn't commenting on Indonesia's or the RNZN's next frigates (aside from a little tongue in cheek crack at NZ defence spending). I was really trying to make the same point vonnoobie made about extra resourcing - although he made it better than I.

The green bit is about the Arafura Class, not the Kiwi Anzac replacement.