Lets see what the Defence Strategic Review comes up with regards to the Arafura Class and any speculated corvette acquisition.
Then we can look at fleet ops
Regards S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Then we can look at fleet ops
Regards S
So I'd assume that means the range figure of 4,000 nmi is at ~18 knots, with the same 7,500 nmi figure as Darussalam at 12 knots?
The reason I'm interested in the range is whether they have the capability to independently conduct forward maritime security patrols in the South Pacific. Mainly focused on maintaining persistent visible presence, aiding in fisheries protection and first response HADR etc.
Last edited:
The RAN has had standard routing speeds for decades. All ship ranges are quoted on that basis, whether they are likely to actually participate in warfighting operations with the fleet or not. That is because while they might not be involved in actual warfighting operations with, say, a DDG, there will be times when they are in company, conducting OOW manouevres, towexs, distexs or just on passage together. And operations do not just include high end warfighting; they include HADR, sovereignty enforcement, SAR ops, showing the flag, nation building, all sorts of activities during which, in the past, patrol boats and MFUs have operated together and it can be expected OPVs and MFUs will operate together in the future. Further, it has been specifically stated that the Arafuras will have the capability of contributing to the tactical picture which requires them to be able to keep up with the tactical picture.
A warship is a versatile capability; they will all do a wide variety of things over their lives and one doesn't limit them unnecessarily.
A warship is a versatile capability; they will all do a wide variety of things over their lives and one doesn't limit them unnecessarily.
Does anyone have any information on the following..
- Arafura class, main gun been selected? I read somewhere the millinium gun was being accessed and maybe harpoon 2 being brought over from the ANZAC’s but still haven’t seen any news on how these vessels will be armed.
- MCM Vessel been selected, last I heard the OPV 80 was going to be modified and 8 vessels is this correct?
- Navy stopping the Arafura class at 8 vessels so they can builda much heavier armed corvette vessel. Lurssen 90 was last I heard of potential vessel types.
does anyone have any information on where these OPV are going?
I must say sending 2 vessels each to lombrum naval base PNG, Stanley naval base FIJI, Hera Naval base, Timor and Cocos Keeling, Australia would be great forward projection of nodes and send a message to neighbours with joint ops.
thoughts
- Arafura class, main gun been selected? I read somewhere the millinium gun was being accessed and maybe harpoon 2 being brought over from the ANZAC’s but still haven’t seen any news on how these vessels will be armed.
- MCM Vessel been selected, last I heard the OPV 80 was going to be modified and 8 vessels is this correct?
- Navy stopping the Arafura class at 8 vessels so they can builda much heavier armed corvette vessel. Lurssen 90 was last I heard of potential vessel types.
does anyone have any information on where these OPV are going?
I must say sending 2 vessels each to lombrum naval base PNG, Stanley naval base FIJI, Hera Naval base, Timor and Cocos Keeling, Australia would be great forward projection of nodes and send a message to neighbours with joint ops.
thoughts
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
The up arming of the Arafura's and possible Corvettes has been discussed ad nauseum in this thread, until some announcements are made, March? I would drop the subject. Read back through the thread, the Defpros have given the reasons why they are not suitable for converting to Corvettes.
The current plan is for 12 Arafura's followed by up to 8 vessels based on the same design for MCM and Survey work.
I also suspect we may see more announcements like the NASAMS/NSM one we got last week over the next few weeks as the Government continues to go through the preliminary report that was due in November and make decisions.
buffy9
Well-Known Member
We would need to be invited first, or at the very least put forward a very good case to the countries involved as to why it is a good idea. Maritime security and fisheries protection are important issues, hence Op Solania and the Guardian-class PBs - which appears to be the current approach.
Forward deploying ships also involves more tailored infrastructure than what these naval bases have, to the point where I doubt the RAN has everything it needs right now for sustained OPV patrols (they are still only just entering service). Communications, lubricants, spare parts, accomodation and more are all required. I am sure the OPVs will engage with the region and conduct joint patrols with host nations, but it is not essential that they be forward based there. The OPVs are better suited to this than the ACPB/CCPB and defence diplomacy is on the rise, so I see no reason why more joint patrols won't happen.
Without speculating on what the DSR holds, there is still a need for sovereign maritime security. Our maritime territory/zones are enormous, forward basing several of them may limit our ability to provide our own coverage.
Last edited:
Lombrum is under going a significant redevelopment that could facilitate the Arafura class opv. PNG look willing to take this further and increase the capacity of the base. As has Stanley with a new wharf in Fiji along with the new naval HQ currently being built. Hera has also upgraded its naval base and I’m guessing Australia could leverage the sunrise gas fields to facilitate basing agreements with East Timor also. Cocos while being upgraded for the RAAF is the only major infrastructure still the RAN needs to develop which granted would not be cheap but having these bases further north and into the pacific Indian oceans really does shape our reach and awareness. The government has been working hard over the past 12months to sign security and defence agreements with PNG , Fiji, East Timor and I can’t see why reaching further out to gain control of these areas isn’t an optimal plan.
Who's building the wharf and Naval HQ at Stanley in Fiji? Is a PRC company and funding under the Belt and Road initiative?
AndyinOz
Member
It would appear that Australia is footing the bill for these particular projects. A prudent investment in building up infrastructure with one of our Pacific partners. Along with the Guardian Patrol Vessel program to counter the attempt at expansion of PRC influence in the region, I imagine requires Australia as one of the bigger players to spend the resources to compete with the bucket loads of cash the PRC is using to further influence.
Enhancing Fiji's Maritime Domain Awareness
Fijian Prime Minister Hon. Josaia V. Bainimarama and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese MP have launched a major infrastructure project to enhance Fiji’s maritime capabilities. Building on the long-standing Vuvale Partnership, Fiji and Australia will construct the new Maritime Essential...
No, because A. Those decisions have yet to be made or B. They have yet to be made public.
In any case the Harpoons are being retired. I would highly doubt RAN would want to be carrying and sustaining multiple types of in-service anti-ship missiles, particularly one it has clearly decided is in need of replacement.
We saw an AWD conduct a Harpoon shoot mid to late 2022, against a land target reputedly for the first time. I suspect we will see many more of these over the next couple of years, with even the Harpoon in in Block II configuration, likely reaching the end of it’s effective shelf life having been first introduced in the early 2000’s…
To summarise the debate so far ….. Politics should be avoided where practical. I note there is some support for Rudd but a lot of folk who reflect on the fact that he presided over a hiatus of defence spending (lots of talk but no orders).
Rest assured if the discussion gets too bogged down on Rudd rather than looking at the AUKUS situation then mods will direct the discussion back to the appropriate path.
There will always be discussion on defence spending but the Government of the Day and comment can be expected. Rudd simply fills a diplomatic role but is notable as a decisive character on both sides of politics.
I think you need to look at the Patrol boat project as it may answer some of your proposals. Each Guardian Class PB (and the remaining Pacific PB;s) are supported by an Australian support team. They ensure the boats are ‘serviced’ and provide operational advise. Basically you have the same input on operations without the legal issues of operating an Australian warship in the territorial waters of another nation.
An Australian OPV based in East Timor can only operate within the Timor domestic law in its territorial waters and can only exercise the enforcement provisions of UNCLOS on the high seas.
I think you will find all the locations you are looking at are members of the Guardian class project.
Finally ….. basing any largish vessel in Cocos will be an interesting evolution (look and the facilities) ….. Christmas Island is worse as there is limited shelter for vessels.
Whilst there would certainly be cost involved in upgrading the facilities at Cocos, it would arguably be an astute long-term investment.
Being able to forward base (for example) two Arafura OPVs at Cocos on a rotational basis would allow for much more efficient patrol and presence in that region. Especially when considering it's over 1,500 nmi from FBW and over 1,900 mmi from Darwin, you're talking multiple days of transit to respond to anything picked up by surveillance assets in our Indian Ocean External Territories EEZs, or off the north western coast.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
It will be interesting to see what comes out of this new Defence agreement with PNG, will Australia push for a presence at Manus Island. With the much greater endurance capabilities of the Arafura class over previous PBs, I could see a permanent rotation of OPVs operating out of Manus Island.
Cocos does tick alot of boxes for an OPV
I have often wondered if it is feasible?
Crew could fly in / fly out with main ship maintenance conducted at FBW Darwin or Broome.
Yes this island cluster is a small blip in the Indian Ocean with all the challenges that one would expect, but it is in a prime location both for a maritime asset or two and also as a part-time base for aircraft.
I'm mindful of the environmental concerns of creating too much infrastructure but I'd guess there would be away.
Again is it worth the endeavour?
Cheers S
Ok, so you're a 21 year old ABBM and keen on serving on OPVs. Do you want to spend months of the year for the next 3 years doing patrols out of Manus ? Pass. Interesting idea strategically, but much harder to implement (given the RAN hasn't done permanent forward basing) and not sure there'd be an appetite for it given the current recruitment issues without putting something this unpalatable to families.
But is it a possibility to fly the crew in and out of Perth. FBW.
The ADF as an employer will need to think differently.
Just a concept
Thoughts.........?
The RAN wont change crews out as they have returned to single crew ship for Armidales, Capes and OPV. While I was a fan of multi crewing, many of my colleagues hated it. That and Navy were Navy and fkd it up. 8wks on, 4wks off was enjoyable but you burnt thru leave as going into work on the off rotation was boring waste of time and resources.
I've discussed with many since that if they did multi crew again, then FIFO would be much more beneficial. In return, you cannot claim Rental Assistance which can divert that money towards flights for ppl to live wherever. ABF Maritime do it and have managed it for years quite well with a good break for their crews. RAN are to risk adverse for such matters.
RAN will at no stage leave a boat at CI or Cocos. While Flying Fish cove in CI has an awesome wharf now, it wont handle Wet Season storms and currents from the North. rotations will continue and be effective, the sail from FBW or Coonawarra is just part of it. Its about same distance to botu from CI
ABF would leave Triton at Cocos and fly crews in, but were required to send a bay class mid year so triton could berth for maintenance.
In 2013, they ABF left Ocean Protector at Christmas Island bug their contracted crew had a clause requiring change out in a port and not at sea. OP for operational reasons overstayed her time at CI, requiring boarding crew flown in and swapped out (Paid penalties) and the ship spent next 8-10 days sailing back to port with the crew on double rates. It cost them a big financial hit so they werent keen on it.
I've discussed with many since that if they did multi crew again, then FIFO would be much more beneficial. In return, you cannot claim Rental Assistance which can divert that money towards flights for ppl to live wherever. ABF Maritime do it and have managed it for years quite well with a good break for their crews. RAN are to risk adverse for such matters.
RAN will at no stage leave a boat at CI or Cocos. While Flying Fish cove in CI has an awesome wharf now, it wont handle Wet Season storms and currents from the North. rotations will continue and be effective, the sail from FBW or Coonawarra is just part of it. Its about same distance to botu from CI
ABF would leave Triton at Cocos and fly crews in, but were required to send a bay class mid year so triton could berth for maintenance.
In 2013, they ABF left Ocean Protector at Christmas Island bug their contracted crew had a clause requiring change out in a port and not at sea. OP for operational reasons overstayed her time at CI, requiring boarding crew flown in and swapped out (Paid penalties) and the ship spent next 8-10 days sailing back to port with the crew on double rates. It cost them a big financial hit so they werent keen on it.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I was actually thinking more along the lines of using boats based in Cairns on a 3 month rotation through Manus.
The problem with Cocos is the water depth and the fact most of the lagoon is a marine park conservation area. To provide services for ongoing rotational basing considerable work would be required to provide services. This is not just for facilities for the vessel but supplies, power and fresh water as well (there is a project to increase the capacity of the Reverse Osmosis plants on the islands .... which will require additional power).
cocos-keeling-islands-marine-park-map-zoning-2022.pdf (parksaustralia.gov.au)
Basing an OPV here would also mean a larger fuel storage would be requried. There is only one shipping company running to Cocos and cargo transfer is by barge. This service is roughly monthly. There are no plans to build a wharf (it would need to be extreamly long) and I suspect the fact that much of the waters are a national park may be an issue.
About (zentnershipping.com.au)
This does no preclude an OPV 'stopping off' as part of its patrol. I can see no point in basing an OPV given the issues.