Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Stampede]

As I understand it AusGov would have provided initial guidance on the acceptable scope of the project, which would have been some time prior to the 2013 DWP publication. The scope of the project, based off statements which have been made as well as what the OPV's are replacing, was for the RAN to acquire larger, ocean-going vessels to carry out the constab/patrol duties of the ACPB. From a cost perspective, it was replacing patrol boats costing ~AUD$30 mil. each, with larger and more capable patrol vessels costing ~AUD$300 mil. each.

If one were to contemplate corvettes, the price per vessel would have been more like AUD$600 mil. each.

One also needs to really look at and consider the timeline of SEA 1180. For instance, the competitive eval to select a designer and builder started in Nov 2015 as SEA 1180 Phase 1 Offshore Patrol Vessel program, per the ANAO report here. In order for a designer and builder of the future OPV's to be selected, the decision to order OPV's rather than corvettes, frigates, or something else would already have been made.

Now I suppose that prior to Lurssen getting selected in 2017 to provide the OPV design, a review could have been conducted which determined that ordering OPV's was inappropriate, but then either SEA 1180 would have to have been closed and a new project commenced, or all the preliminary work which lead up to SEA 1180 Phase 1 would have needed to be redone. This would then lead to a new set of ship requirements which the different designers could then work towards, before designers/builders get short-listed and finally a prime selected. Basically changing the 'rules' of the project would require everything to be restarted and redone.

I expect it would be similar to if there was an AIR project running to select a replacement LIFT, and then various people started advocating for the LIFT design to be changed to also be a combat aircraft able to sortie into/through hostile airspace, with other people even suggesting shortening the LIFT order to purchase more fighter aircraft.

My personal belief is that yes, the RAN will likely need more combatants between now and 2035 (quite possibly earlier) than are currently planned. Unfortunately though in order for more/new combatants to be in service for much of the peak demands (late 2020's into early 2030's IMO) the projects which would have ordered the new combatants should have started a decade ago or more. Looking through the 2013 DWP, specifically the strategic outlook, the DWP does indicate trends of rising tension but does not suggest large-scale conflict in the Asia-Pacific region being likely between 2025-2030, which is one of the concerns many have now. Basically it seems that the 2013 DWP expected conditions to be more benign than it seems is now expected. From a warship in service/availability POV that is a problem because of just how long it takes to get warships into service. Looking at the ANAO reporting on SEA 4000, first pass approval was in May 2005 or thereabouts, with IOC of the Hobart-class DDG reached in at the end of 2018 or start of 2019. Now the Hobart-class DDG did have some gov't ordered delays which added a couple of years IIRC, that still puts naval acquisitions taking 10+ years between project start/first pass approval and initial entry into service.

If the in service deadline to be useful is 2030, then projects would have needed to start ~2018/2019, and gov't would need to have approved the additional projects and also been willing to sustain them.

The retention of the Supply ship HMAS Sirius and the two FFGs Melbourne and Newcastle may of assisted with our options through to the early 2030's.
Value for money and were in service.

Cheers S

 

[Volkodav]

Sure - the government made the decision, but does anyone believe that the government wrote the specifications against which the decision was judged? Or made the assessment and recommendation? Or that a year before contract award that the situation could not have been re-evaluated? Now, before we even have a ship sailing the oceans, there are reportedly concerns (identified and voiced on this very site, let alone within the RAN) on the utility of this class of vessels. This should be scrutinised heavily. The strategic situation has not changed that rapidly.

A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon we will be talking real money.

Requirements not specifications and the government usually ignore them or order them rewritten to fit what they decided to buy.

Some requirements are simply the ship specification from the builder / designer, dumped into a requirements management system and left for systems engineering to sort out and extract useful info from.

The Australian government is not and never has been a very smart buyer.

Politicians and political staffers are for the most part lawyers and politics grads with a spattering of economics and commerce/business people, yes even those from union backgrounds are more likely to be arts /law/business grads than off the shop floor.

These people tend to look down their noses at Australian engineers and logisticians. They see them as a bunch of incompetent rent seekers and choose not to listen to them. To get anywhere engineering and ILS practitioners need to move overseas or have a manager from overseas before any of our political classes will listen to a word they say or read a word they wrote.

 

[Meriv90]

Is this common to most commonwealth nations?

 

[Morgo]

Requirements not specifications and the government usually ignore them or order them rewritten to fit what they decided to buy.

Some requirements are simply the ship specification from the builder / designer, dumped into a requirements management system and left for systems engineering to sort out and extract useful info from.

The Australian government is not and never has been a very smart buyer.

Politicians and political staffers are for the most part lawyers and politics grads with a spattering of economics and commerce/business people, yes even those from union backgrounds are more likely to be arts /law/business grads than off the shop floor.

These people tend to look down their noses at Australian engineers and logisticians. They see them as a bunch of incompetent rent seekers and choose not to listen to them. To get anywhere engineering and ILS practitioners need to move overseas or have a manager from overseas before any of our political classes will listen to a word they say or read a word they wrote.

Without wanting to get political or weigh in on the merits of a criminal case, the most eye opening thing about the current Higgins case for me has frankly been just how stupid and incompetent ALL of the relevant political actors have been. Completely clueless from the minister down.

I’m under no illusions that the other side is any better.

Honestly when you hear some of the completely idiotic and unprofessional decisions that were made I despair. Jesus wept, is this lot the best we can do?

 

[Volkodav]

Some interesting articles that show why Australia may be looking at corvettes.

China Welcomes Its Newest Armed Force: The Coast Guard (warontherocks.com)

China’s Worrying New Coast Guard Law – The Diplomat

Is China’s Coast Guard About to Field a Modified PLA Warship? – The Diplomat

How China Is Expanding Its Coast Guard – The Diplomat

It has been clearly stated that China is not looking to build a naval base in the Solomons, but they are stationing police there, their Coast Guard is an arm of Chinas Armed Police. Chinas Coast Guard is already being used in one of the primary tools in aggressive territorial expansion, the coast guard is growing and includes converted frigates and now new build corvettes.

Forget fantasy fleets and platform verses platform discussions, the strategic situation has changed and OPVs, even armed ones do not cut it.

Would something bigger and better than corvette be good, yes, could it be obtained earlier than or without impacting the delivery of the Hunters, probably not.

Prior to WWII the RAN was basically aiming to be a cruiser and sloop navy, its modern ships were quite literally all cruisers and sloops. The destroyers were secondhand WWI RN veterans, and the only other new (as opposed to modern) vessels were boom defence vessels.

Leading up to WWII there were very brief investigations into acquiring/building a modern battleship, later there were plans to build a modern cruiser locally, most likely a Dido. Two additional sloops and eight Tribal Class destroyers were ordered from local yards, the sloops and three destroyers were completed. The majority of ships built locally were seaward defence vessels (the famous Bathurst Class Corvettes) and Fairmile B motorboats, with a dozen River and Bay (modified River) class frigates being built late in the war, many not completed until after.

Perfect is the enemy of good enough, but you are still better off getting the best you can actually get in the time you have. In the same vein, building skills and infrastructure while you can gives you more flexibility and more options going forward. Doing nothing leaves you with nothing, risk adversity and decision paralysis is more damaging than not even trying to adapt.

At the very worst corvettes will increase skills withing industry and the navy, facilitating both, given enough time, the capability to build and operate something better down the line.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Is this common to most commonwealth nations

Middle powers sometimes struggle with this and commonwealth countries I think were always dependent on "mighty friends" than can do it with us and carry us along. Australia sees it self as influencing British and US global order, than being sub servant to it. Hence as soon as anything slightly challenging comes along, we assume our mighty and powerful friends will do it for us.

While Spain, Italy, Germany or France would find buying British or even American gear slightly undermining their own agenda, independence and identity, in Australia it is seen as strengthening the order and friends we want. We still have prime ministers of both sides, born in the UK (Gillard and Abbott) and UK centric and US reliance to bail out our issues is still general policy and what we think they want as an ally.

Also, we operate outside of NATO, outside of NAFTA, outside of the EU. We are the lost boys of the British (and American) empire. NZ withdrew into self, and Australia is desperately trying to get the mighty powers attention.

That said, Australia has a future, and its bright and sunny. We have all the resources, and in our region we are the power and with our solid links and influence into US/UK policy, economy, culture and politics, there is confidence.

Right up until it looks like both the US and the UK are going to implode of their own accord, the EU struggles to secure itself, things get complicated in North Asia and China, China starts to get a bit more edgy. We are very far away, Beijing is closer in distance to London or Seattle than it is to Sydney and our buffer nations include Japan, South Korea, US territories, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. We hope we can keep problems a long way away. We have strategic depth to almost infinity, we are almost on another planet.

2013 was a long time ago, and since then the world has basically gone into global collapse. Crimea in 2014, Trump, Boris, Brexit, Jan 6, Ukraine, Hong Kong, Abe assassination, COVID19, Nordstream, the northern hemisphere drought... Going forward doesn't look any brighter either..

Honestly when you hear some of the completely idiotic and unprofessional decisions that were made I despair. Jesus wept, is this lot the best we can do?

I hope the times make the man or woman. I hope that someone comes along who can match with integrity, talent, intellect and leadership and has a top notch team behind them. It certainly is a shit show. But look around, its a global shitshow. Maybe its always been this bad, its just more visible now, and more challenging now. We will see this at the next G20.

But I don't know how anyone can look around and not see the global, multidimensional series of crisis's we just keep ploughing into and not see a massive imperative for Australia to get of its buttocks and try and make itself as tough, as self reliant and as sustainable as possible for the next ~15 years. Heck if we make it through the next 8 unscathed, I will be surprised.

Australia should be an island of stability and hope. For our population, for our region and for our friends afar. That includes the UK, The US, Japan, the EU, Ukraine, and closer to home, Singapore, Indonesia, Fiji, PNG, NZ etc.

For Australia building and operating a top flight navy able to secure our self and our region would go a long way to doing that. Army and Air force certainly play a part, but a Navy requires planning, industry, money, commitment. Not a flakey democracy that can't see past next Tuesday and can't plan a piss up in a brewery.

At the very worst corvettes will increase skills withing industry and the navy, facilitating both, given enough time, the capability to build and operate something better down the line.

I think there is a place for that. But we should not ignore the immediate if there is a possibility of building majors. Our surrounding nations can only ever operate light frigates/corvettes.

The Ukraine shows, you need stuff even if its the wrong stuff. If you don't have stuff, you have no options. There are 6 OPV's under construction currently. Another 6 to go and we can start to ramp the workforce and industrial capability to build these even faster. We should already have a low end combatant option ready to go off the shelf. But we don't really even have the weapons for that kind of craft. But corvettes won't stop China. Not alone.

November can't come soon enough

 

[Volkodav]

What I left out of the previous post is why Australia went for a cruiser and sloop navy between the wars, cruisers and sloops were the only useful ships available that had the required endurance.

Had Australia had the required industrial capacity additional sloops would have been built instead of the corvettes and frigates, and cruisers instead of the Tribals. The Tribals were selected because they were large, gun heavy destroyers, capable of undertaking many cruiser roles that smaller, more traditional destroyers couldn't. Cruisers would have been prefered but considering only three tribals were built it's likely cruisers couldn't have been delivered in time.

 

[Lolcake]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/australia-nuclear-submarines-us-admirals/

A truly in depth article by the wp regarding nuke subs and how we got to where we are today.
A very very Interesting read.

 

[ADMk2]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/australia-nuclear-submarines-us-admirals/

A truly in depth article by the wp regarding nuke subs and how we got to where we are today.
A very very Interesting read.

Up until they quoted Hellyer, it was going alright…

 

[Stampede]

Up until they quoted Hellyer, it was going alright…

A quality article including the input from Hellyer.
This Nuclear enterprise is an very ambitious undertaking.
It may well produce a good long term result but pending some answers to a great deal of questions we are in the dark.
We may not like the uncomfortable questions but they are necessary.

Hopefully we get some quality answers next year mapping out a realistic solution for our submarine predicament.

Repeat a realistic solution!

Regards S

 

[Morgo]

At the very worst corvettes will increase skills withing industry and the navy, facilitating both, given enough time, the capability to build and operate something better down the line.

Doesn’t completing the OPV build also do this at lower cost?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Up until they quoted Hellyer, it was going alright…

To be fair, and I'm no Marcus fan, he is quoted as saying...

“I can’t really see what the way forward is at the moment,” he said. “The whole thing has been completely disastrous.”

The whole shemozzle around it, yeh fair. I also don't see how this is going to work (hopefully smarter people solve this issue), and the whole Japan subs, competitive process, French subs, nuclear subs was a mess.

Doesn’t completing the OPV build also do this at lower cost?

Can't stop it now! 6 are under construction, 1 nearing end of fitout, and lead items and contracts for the remaining 6 are already paid for and spent and will immediately start as the existing are finished off, no backsies.

However what comes after them at Henderson is not clear AFAIK.

 

[Morgo]

To be fair, and I'm no Marcus fan, he is quoted as saying...


The whole shemozzle around it, yeh fair. I also don't see how this is going to work (hopefully smarter people solve this issue), and the whole Japan subs, competitive process, French subs, nuclear subs was a mess.


Can't stop it now! 6 are under construction, 1 nearing end of fitout, and lead items and contracts for the remaining 6 are already paid for and spent and will immediately start as the existing are finished off, no backsies.

However what comes after them at Henderson is not clear AFAIK.

I wholly agree - my point was that the OPVs are needed in the roles they were originally designed for and would provide the same crew pool and industry benefits (to the extent these benefits exist) as the proposed corvettes - and at a lower price point.

In terms of what the West Australians should get on with after finishing the OPVs, hopefully there will be a nice big order of LCH replacements and whatever gets selected for LAND 8710 to sink their teeth into. This is a much more urgent capability gap in my view than low end combatants, and one that could feasibly be delivered in short order. Once they're done with that a pair of LPDs to replace Choules would be nice, but I think they may struggle with something this big?

 

[Volkodav]

I wholly agree - my point was that the OPVs are needed in the roles they were originally designed for and would provide the same crew pool and industry benefits (to the extent these benefits exist) as the proposed corvettes - and at a lower price point.

In terms of what the West Australians should get on with after finishing the OPVs, hopefully there will be a nice big order of LCH replacements and whatever gets selected for LAND 8710 to sink their teeth into. This is a much more urgent capability gap in my view than low end combatants, and one that could feasibly be delivered in short order. Once they're done with that a pair of LPDs to replace Choules would be nice, but I think they may struggle with something this big?

Comparing an OPV to a Corvette is like calling a G-wagen with ballistic protection a tank.

An OPV is a bigger more seaworthy patrol boat, with longer endurance. A Corvette is a warship.

 

[StingrayOZ]

In terms of what the West Australians should get on with after finishing the OPVs, hopefully there will be a nice big order of LCH replacements and whatever gets selected for LAND 8710 to sink their teeth into. This is a much more urgent capability gap in my view than low end combatants, and one that could feasibly be delivered in short order. Once they're done with that a pair of LPDs to replace Choules would be nice, but I think they may struggle with something this big?

Well this is where we drift off into unclear land.
Don't know what is happening with the "big dock" at Henderson as the existing lift if for 12,000t. If that is still going ahead for maintenance and new build construction. Where does Galileo go after 2025. Exactly what does the continuous ship building look like going forward.

Hendersons Civmec yard is huge in size. Don't think they are limited to only small OPV builds. They could build blocks for the Queen Elizabeth class there and assemble on a hard stand outside if they wished, but getting into and out of the water is the issue. Hence is the government going to commit to build the big lift or not.

The main hall isn't exactly built for just large ships, but its big you could do almost anything in it.


Supply class are 173m and 23 wide, so you could probably put a supply class, and a Hobart class side by side, just.
Just in the main hall, fully enclosed in comfort. Not just building, but also maintaining them as well.

Larger ships could be constructed in mega blocks and assembled in/outside the hall. Most large ships and aircraft carriers aren't built in enclosed halls. Most fabrication halls are much, much, much smaller than this and more like the outer bays which can fit OPV's.

10 years ago we really did have limited ship building capabilities. With Henderson and Osbornes (BAE and ASC) upgrades, we now have mega yards. Modern, efficient, computerized, automated, advanced tooling etc.

We built yards like we were going into 1939...

 

[ngatimozart]

Doesn’t completing the OPV build also do this at lower cost?

No. Reread Volkodav's post that you quoted.

It has been clearly stated that China is not looking to build a naval base in the Solomons, but they are stationing police there, their Coast Guard is an arm of Chinas Armed Police. Chinas Coast Guard is already being used in one of the primary tools in aggressive territorial expansion, the coast guard is growing and includes converted frigates and now new build corvettes.

Forget fantasy fleets and platform verses platform discussions, the strategic situation has changed and OPVs, even armed ones do not cut it.

Would something bigger and better than corvette be good, yes, could it be obtained earlier than or without impacting the delivery of the Hunters, probably not.

Corvettes are not the be all to end all, but they give a navy an EEZ patrol and escort capability that frees up its fleet combatants for more important and urgent taskings in a high end combat environment. RAN corvettes aren't going to be used to do a Lord Nelson and sail into the midst of an enemy CBG all guns and missiles blazing, with jolly Jack & Jenny ready to board the enemy. They're used in less risky environments but have the ability to defend themselves and throw a punch if required. A CCG, DDG, or FFG they aren't and never intended to be.

There is no need for a big arse 16in gun - ahem I mean 76mm gun on them because a 57mm is more than capable. Given the size of the Chinese Coast Guard ships something displacing 3,500 - 4,000 tonnes with a very strong hull structure is going to be required. The CCG is fond of ramming as are some of their "fishing vessels" which are actually Peoples Maritime Militia boats and IIRC, like the CCG, now come under the command of the PLAN. Xi has doubled down on the CCP/PRC expansion for resources so we can expect more PRC maritime encounters in the region. He said in his opening speech to the 20th Party Congress on 16th October 2022:

"We must take the people's security as our ultimate goal, political security as our fundamental task, economic security as our foundation, military, technological, cultural, and social security as important pillars, and international security as a support." Later he said, "China stands firmly against all forms of hegemonism and power politics, the Cold War mentality, interference in other countries' internal affairs, and double standards."​

Source: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-e6a2-d425-a58b-e6ebcc840000​

He said a lot of other things too and the speech was quite turgid to read. However the two parts that I have quoted are important in understanding what we all in the Pacific face; "political security as our fundamental task" is Xi saying that the CCP must ensure it retains its tight grip on power. In order to do so it must keep the people fed and fooled convinced that they are happy; "economic security as our foundation" means that the CCP must ensure that they have access to the required resources to ensure that the fundamental task is always supported regardless of consequences. That's why we will see more and more CCP/PRC maritime and other encounters in our region. They need every resource that they can lay their hands on.

Having corvettes is not, as some seem to think, about getting as many missiles as possible to sea in the battlefleet. They are a second rate / tier warship used in the rear less contested waters to undertake patrol work that OPVs would and to escort convoys, freeing up FFGs from the escort work. If you want to add more missiles to the RAN battlefleet then you build more FFGs and DDGs. The other thing you do is put AShM and ESSM Blk 2 in the Mk-41 VLS, or the MK-57 VLS, on the LHDs, Choules, and AORs. This provides them with a coherent self defence capability and gives extra SSM for the fleet. It's the USN Distributed Lethality doctrine. It doesn't cost a lot and you don't need to put AEGIS on the ships. That would be stupid. Just a good radar would do the job.

 

[ADMk2]

No. Reread Volkodav's post that you quoted.

Corvettes are not the be all to end all, but they give a navy an EEZ patrol and escort capability that frees up its fleet combatants for more important and urgent taskings in a high end combat environment. RAN corvettes aren't going to be used to do a Lord Nelson and sail into the midst of an enemy CBG all guns and missiles blazing, with jolly Jack & Jenny ready to board the enemy. They're used in less risky environments but have the ability to defend themselves and throw a punch if required. A CCG, DDG, or FFG they aren't and never intended to be.

There is no need for a big arse 16in gun - ahem I mean 76mm gun on them because a 57mm is more than capable. Given the size of the Chinese Coast Guard ships something displacing 3,500 - 4,000 tonnes with a very strong hull structure is going to be required. The CCG is fond of ramming as are some of their "fishing vessels" which are actually Peoples Maritime Militia boats and IIRC, like the CCG, now come under the command of the PLAN. Xi has doubled down on the CCP/PRC expansion for resources so we can expect more PRC maritime encounters in the region. He said in his opening speech to the 20th Party Congress on 16th October 2022:

"We must take the people's security as our ultimate goal, political security as our fundamental task, economic security as our foundation, military, technological, cultural, and social security as important pillars, and international security as a support." Later he said, "China stands firmly against all forms of hegemonism and power politics, the Cold War mentality, interference in other countries' internal affairs, and double standards."​

Source: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-e6a2-d425-a58b-e6ebcc840000​

He said a lot of other things too and the speech was quite turgid to read. However the two parts that I have quoted are important in understanding what we all in the Pacific face; "political security as our fundamental task" is Xi saying that the CCP must ensure it retains its tight grip on power. In order to do so it must keep the people fed and fooled convinced that they are happy; "economic security as our foundation" means that the CCP must ensure that they have access to the required resources to ensure that the fundamental task is always supported regardless of consequences. That's why we will see more and more CCP/PRC maritime and other encounters in our region. They need every resource that they can lay their hands on.

Having corvettes is not, as some seem to think, about getting as many missiles as possible to sea in the battlefleet. They are a second rate warship used in the rear less contested waters to undertake patrol work that OPVs would and to escort convoys, freeing up FFGs from the escort work. If you want to add more missiles to the RAN battlefleet then you build more FFGs and DDGs. The other thing you do is put AShM and ESSM Blk 2 in the Mk-41 VLS, or the MK-57 VLS, on the LHDs, Choules, and AORs. This provides them with a coherent self defence capability and gives extra SSM for the fleet. It's the USN Distributed Lethality doctrine. It doesn't cost a lot and you don't need to put AEGIS on the ships. That would be stupid. Just a good radar would do the job.

The LHD’s came with SAAB 9LV CS, SAAB Sea Giraffe Naval AMB 3D radar, Rafael EO/IR sensor balls, Link 11, 16, 22, SATCOM, HF/VHF/UHF comms, Nulka EW decoys and Nixie torpedo decoys so they are relatively well-equipped from a C4ISREW POV for self-defence, they just need some bloody systems attached! Lol.

But HMAS Choules isn’t nearly so well equipped and I doubt she ever will be. I’d suggest the capabilities inherent in the above fitout (even if they aren’t the ‘exact’ same systems or future iterations thereof, though ideally they would be from a sustainment / training POV…) should be the baseline fitout on ALL RAN warships (Supply Class perhaps aside though in some aspects they are better defended than the LHD’s at present…) along with of course RAN’s choice of gun / missile / DE / EW defensive capabilities…

 

[Morgo]

Comparing an OPV to a Corvette is like calling a G-wagen with ballistic protection a tank.

An OPV is a bigger more seaworthy patrol boat, with longer endurance. A Corvette is a warship.

I fully understand.

So are the skills you were referring to that would be built within industry and Navy more integration and operation of high end sensors and weapons that would be on a corvette but not on an OPV? If so that makes sense to me.

I had interpreted your comment as a corvette build being good for developing larger pools of skills in more general shipbuilding and seamanship (which I would've thought would apply to continuous shipbuilding of any type) but I may have misunderstood.

EDIT: Fixed a typo.

 

[Morgo]

No. Reread Volkodav's post that you quoted.

Corvettes are not the be all to end all, but they give a navy an EEZ patrol and escort capability that frees up its fleet combatants for more important and urgent taskings in a high end combat environment. RAN corvettes aren't going to be used to do a Lord Nelson and sail into the midst of an enemy CBG all guns and missiles blazing, with jolly Jack & Jenny ready to board the enemy. They're used in less risky environments but have the ability to defend themselves and throw a punch if required. A CCG, DDG, or FFG they aren't and never intended to be.

There is no need for a big arse 16in gun - ahem I mean 76mm gun on them because a 57mm is more than capable. Given the size of the Chinese Coast Guard ships something displacing 3,500 - 4,000 tonnes with a very strong hull structure is going to be required. The CCG is fond of ramming as are some of their "fishing vessels" which are actually Peoples Maritime Militia boats and IIRC, like the CCG, now come under the command of the PLAN. Xi has doubled down on the CCP/PRC expansion for resources so we can expect more PRC maritime encounters in the region. He said in his opening speech to the 20th Party Congress on 16th October 2022:

"We must take the people's security as our ultimate goal, political security as our fundamental task, economic security as our foundation, military, technological, cultural, and social security as important pillars, and international security as a support." Later he said, "China stands firmly against all forms of hegemonism and power politics, the Cold War mentality, interference in other countries' internal affairs, and double standards."​

Source: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000183-e6a2-d425-a58b-e6ebcc840000​

He said a lot of other things too and the speech was quite turgid to read. However the two parts that I have quoted are important in understanding what we all in the Pacific face; "political security as our fundamental task" is Xi saying that the CCP must ensure it retains its tight grip on power. In order to do so it must keep the people fed and fooled convinced that they are happy; "economic security as our foundation" means that the CCP must ensure that they have access to the required resources to ensure that the fundamental task is always supported regardless of consequences. That's why we will see more and more CCP/PRC maritime and other encounters in our region. They need every resource that they can lay their hands on.

Having corvettes is not, as some seem to think, about getting as many missiles as possible to sea in the battlefleet. They are a second rate / tier warship used in the rear less contested waters to undertake patrol work that OPVs would and to escort convoys, freeing up FFGs from the escort work. If you want to add more missiles to the RAN battlefleet then you build more FFGs and DDGs. The other thing you do is put AShM and ESSM Blk 2 in the Mk-41 VLS, or the MK-57 VLS, on the LHDs, Choules, and AORs. This provides them with a coherent self defence capability and gives extra SSM for the fleet. It's the USN Distributed Lethality doctrine. It doesn't cost a lot and you don't need to put AEGIS on the ships. That would be stupid. Just a good radar would do the job.

Yep got it.

The bit I don't understand and others may be able to enlighten me on is what are the tasks that you would use a corvette for that an OPV with a 57 mm couldn't handle? I would've thought if an appropriate gun is ultimately selected for the Arafura's that they would be adequate for dealing with the "grey zone" issues, and as you say leaving anything spicier for FFGs/DDGs.

Are there certain tasks that would require additional speed / sensors / combat system that a corvette might bring over and above what an OPV does?

 

[ADMk2]

Yep got it.

The bit I don't understand and others may be able to enlighten me on is what are the tasks that you would use a corvette for that an OPV with a 57 mm couldn't handle? I would've thought if an appropriate gun is ultimately selected for the Arafura's that they would be adequate for dealing with the "grey zone" issues, and as you say leaving anything spicier for FFGs/DDGs.

Are there certain tasks that would require additional speed / sensors / combat system that a corvette might bring over and above what an OPV does?

A Corvette is going to have a range of capabilities that an OPV never will. Take a look at the K130 seeing as though it was mentioned as a possible in context for the RAN Corvette discussion.

It comes with a combat management system, 3D /4D AESA radar system, active and passive EW / SIGINT, passive starring IRST, EO /IR capabilities, 76mm gun system, a pair of self-defence surface to air missile launchers with 42 missile rounds full integrated into the combat system and cued by radar / IRST, an anti-ship / land attack missile capability again integrated fully into the combat system, a pair of anti-surface auto-cannons, a torpedo decoy system. a mine laying system and aviation facilities for an 11t class maritime helicopter.

Compared to an Arafura with a 57mm gun, there is day and night between the 2 in terms of combat capability.

The K130 however is very short-ranged. If it were imposed upon RAN politically (which I suspect it would have to be) it would likely be used for local patrolling and defensive operations and escort tasks at most.