The now oldest ANZAC Arunta will be 32 in 2030.
I’d like to think that’s possible.
However
The ANZACs have been worked very hard.
Hmmmmmm
Tme will tell
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I’d like to think that’s possible.
However
The ANZACs have been worked very hard.
Hmmmmmm
Tme will tell
Cheers S
Maybe Pusser means after Arunta is decommissioned in 2026, the rest will continue past 2030.
If all ships are decommissioned after 28 years of service…
Arunta 26’
Warramunga 29’
Stuart 30’
Parramatta 31’
Ballarat 32’
Toowoomba 33’
Perth 34’
Anzac and Arunta parts may keep the other 6 frigates going until 30+ years which means Warramunga won’t be be decommissioned until 2031/32, about the same time we get a 2nd upgraded Mogami.
At the moment Arunta is scheduled for a drydocking maintenance period next year, I doubt they plan on paying her off so quickly afterwards.
We really are in just in time management trying to nurture 8 to 9 majors out to the late 30s.
2034 is probably best case for Hunter
Mogami is the interesting one.
I’d be hoping some plan B is in place with increased Japanese builds should current various ship builds fall short.
Cheers S
Yea you are right. I'm hearing things. Must be getting old.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Not as old as me, pal!
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I am so old the only way I will see a new RCN sub is if SKorea gets the contract...even this is a stretch.
If it has been decided, then it hasn’t been released publicly that I have seen.
The models and artist renderings released so far only have a pair of remote weapon station mounted 12.7mm guns beside the 127mm gun, so time will tell.
I don’t think RAN will be satisfied with the choice of 127mm or 12.7mm as it’s only gunnery systems moving forward given all their other majors have a medium calibre cannon of some description fitted, but we’ll wait and see…
It seems our selection of the upgraded Mogami class has contributed to influencing NZ and the US to consider it too.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
www.janes.com
By plan or coincidence, we seem to have bought ships which are quite popular. I wonder what real world benefits we will see in 2040 when we have most of our Hunters and Mogamis, working potentially with UK, Canada, Norway (type 26), NZ, Japan, USA(?) (Mogami).
Scuttlebutt: Australia’s selection of evolved Mogami opens the door for a MUCH bigger deal
As is always the case, major trade shows like IndoPac are a hive of scuttlebutt, with some theories realistic, some optimistic and some, quite frankly, ridiculous, but one in particular stood out and made a lot of sense.
www.defenceconnect.com.au
Indo Pacific 2025: Japan, New Zealand begin talks on potential frigates acquisition
Japan and New Zealand have begun government-to-government talks on the improved Mogami-class frigate and how it might fulfil the Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's)...
www.janes.com
By plan or coincidence, we seem to have bought ships which are quite popular. I wonder what real world benefits we will see in 2040 when we have most of our Hunters and Mogamis, working potentially with UK, Canada, Norway (type 26), NZ, Japan, USA(?) (Mogami).
Will there be the capacity be there to crew more? The next decade is going to require a huge amount of resources dedicated to training for the new platforms, systems as well as expanding future personnel numbers.
It’s a good question re crewing
How do you grow personal numbers.
Is it better to have too many or too few ships.
Do additional patrol boats and OPVs provide sea days and experience to help generate crew for the larger fleet?
Cheers S
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect the answer is somewhat more complicated than a simple, "yes or no."
As I understand it, the PB's and/or OPV's can help provide berths for crew and trainees so that they can help increase the number of trained personnel, at least for some types of postings aboard ship. I believe the problem lies with some of the more advanced or technical postings, where there is both a shortage of skilled operators and the PB's and OPV's, being simpler vessels, lack the sensor and electronics capabilities to provide the sort of training berths or stations needed.
There was some that argued we should have went for the FREMM but looking at the sh@t show the Constellation seems to have turned into the choice of the Type 26 may well have been vindicated.It seems our selection of the upgraded Mogami class has contributed to influencing NZ and the US to consider it too.
Scuttlebutt: Australia’s selection of evolved Mogami opens the door for a MUCH bigger deal
As is always the case, major trade shows like IndoPac are a hive of scuttlebutt, with some theories realistic, some optimistic and some, quite frankly, ridiculous, but one in particular stood out and made a lot of sense.
Indo Pacific 2025: Japan, New Zealand begin talks on potential frigates acquisition
Japan and New Zealand have begun government-to-government talks on the improved Mogami-class frigate and how it might fulfil the Royal New Zealand Navy's (RNZN's)...
By plan or coincidence, we seem to have bought ships which are quite popular. I wonder what real world benefits we will see in 2040 when we have most of our Hunters and Mogamis, working potentially with UK, Canada, Norway (type 26), NZ, Japan, USA(?) (Mogami).
I think we need high-end OPV or Corvette sized vessels as a matter of urgency. The Mogamis will be too big for the constabulary role and the Cape/Arafuras may not be up to dealing with the Chinese Coast Guard and Militia fishing fleets. Corvettes would also give us some cover until we start recieving Australian built Mogamis in the 2030s. Not sure who we could get to build them in a short timeframe but I would think at least 6 to replace the cancelled Arafuras would be a good investment.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From where I see and with what I see, there really are no urgent solutions available. Decisions would have to had to been made several years ago in order for results to get delivered in the next few years from now.
This is even before one gets to examining the questions which would surround the issues of countering/responding to the PRC "Coast Guard" and fishing fleets.
If Australia were to attempt to launch a third actively running acquisition and naval construction project, how long would it take for selections to be made, contracts signed, construction started, deliveries and then entry into service? Also, given that Australia is already working on the Hunter-class FFG and SEA 3000, as well as work towards adding and integrating SSN's and AUKUS, how likely would one or of the current programmes suffer or fail due to the addition of yet another project?
One must remember that naval construction, including corvettes, is not like going to one's local automobile dealer and picking out what one wants from the inventor available. If Australia were able to place an order for a class of corvettes right now, today, the delivery of the first ship would likely take at least a few years at the earliest. Looking at corvette build programmes for Finland and Germany, those appear to take about four or five years from start of construction to delivery of the vessel. This means anything ordered now, would likely not start getting delivered until 2030/2031 at the earliest and again this would be for orders placed right now. If any of the normal programme acquisition activities like RFP's or RFT's were done, or design evals, this would likely just push contract signing back by a year or two, which in turn would likely delay first deliveries until 2032/2033.
There would also be the issue of Australia not being exactly spoiled with available choices, especially when it comes to a corvette's fitout. This means that it would likely take the RAN longer to bring a vessel into service once it was completed and delivered, because RAN personnel would need to get trained on the specific systems for the notional corvette as well as Australia establishing the sorts of logistics and maintenance systems the new class of vessel and it's systems would require.
I already think the SEA 3000 acquisition timeline is very (perhaps overly) ambitious, trying to add yet another one is a recipe for disaster, if not catastrophe.
The only option to getting the type of ship mentioned above is to upgrade the Arafura class. As seen at indopac.. 57mm, NSM, captus towed arrray can all be simply added. If they could include a light weight torpedo launcher and install a mistrel 3 simbadrc launcher on the fordeck for pout defence along with the 57mm and it have capability on defence with the NSM becoming your attacking weapon for surface and land targets. This is a good weapon mix add in the module payloads like the speartooth and strix and you have one very capable class of 6 ships that can punch above its weight. And before anyone tells me… no they aren’t going to the South China Sea or front line warships but to send one of these out to our first island chain..have it intercept China coast guard ships.. escort other ships etc is going to be exactly what the navy needs going forward. It’s a no brainer.. it can still undertake all the constabulary roles or take on minesweeping etc but can be pushed up to fly the flag! Thoughts ?
Arafura to kitted out surface combatant ain’t gonna happen, the fixed nsm launcher to the flight deck option is ludicrous from CDI when they also had a containerised nsm option available at the expo. See pic below.
Arafura > C90 conversion also ain’t gonna happen with hulls 4, 5 and 6 in paint or consolidation.
only way to get more opvs in this next 5 year window is from Japan (off the shelf-new Sakura class).
(Indo Pacific 2025 - SH Defence/Kongsberg) pic via Naval news
www.navalnews.com
Arafura > C90 conversion also ain’t gonna happen with hulls 4, 5 and 6 in paint or consolidation.
only way to get more opvs in this next 5 year window is from Japan (off the shelf-new Sakura class).
(Indo Pacific 2025 - SH Defence/Kongsberg) pic via Naval news
Leidos Australia and Kongsberg seek to up-arm USV with NSM - Naval News
Leidos Australia and Kongsberg have signed an MoU to assess possible integration of Naval Strike Missile (NSM) into Sea Archer and Long Bow unmanned surface vessels.
www.navalnews.com
Attachments
devo99
Well-Known Member
Considering we're already taking ships out of their own frigate production run I'm not so sure they'd be as happy about us suddenly doing the same with their new OPVs. Not to mention the Sakura class generally not being the ships the RAN needs albeit that's personal opinion.only way to get more opvs in this next 5 year window is from Japan (off the shelf-new Sakura class).
Leidos Australia and Kongsberg seek to up-arm USV with NSM - Naval News
Leidos Australia and Kongsberg have signed an MoU to assess possible integration of Naval Strike Missile (NSM) into Sea Archer and Long Bow unmanned surface vessels.
The Navy has a good training system. From having worked in both the civilian world and the military world, the military training investment is an order of magnitude more. It is one area they are very strong on and better than most.
Provided that numbers can be recruited through the front door, and these people can be retained (which defence seems to be turning the corner on) then the training system will deliver for new ship classes.
One item to be aware of is that once a person moves to a ship, the training becomes progressively more platform specific. For instance a marine technician obtains a number of watchkeeping certificates that require that person to understand the equipment down to the piping layout level (I crawled through bilges tracing pipelines when I started). Training then includes detailed specialised shore based courses on the propulsion control system and engine types (MTU and LM2500s for me).
While people can and do move between different platforms, the training does not align and there becomes a requirement to requalify. For instance I first learnt on Manoora an LPA, and then went to the ANZACs, where I spent my first few months back in the bilges tracing pipes.
The end point of that is to say that more patrol poats, OPVs or even corvettes does not directly improve the training ability for ANZACs, Mogamis, Hobarts and Hunters.
Ships can train a lot of people. On an ANZAC for instance we had three marine watchkeeping positions over four shifts, and if needed could have that number again in training. Every year we pumped out a significant portion of our crew size in new qualifications.
So, if you have platforms at sea, even a small number, and the recruitment/retention program is delivering, then you can quickly become sustainable in sea training. Australia could comfortably prepare an initial commissioning crew within a couple of years with some training positions within the Japanese fleet, and could then prepare subsequent crews from that first platform for the rest of the class within reasonable time. After about three hulls the training is at its optimum, and more hulls just makes it more efficient.
The single biggest thing we could do for training is minimise the number of platform types. Orphan ships are difficult to sustain. HMAS Success always suffered this problem.
The Navy also has a group called Sea Training Group. This team is made up of very experienced people who assist ships in advanced training, particularly damage control and war fighting. I used to think they were the most evil people in the world, and most crews get anxiety when they know they are coming aboard. That said, I have never experienced a better training program than what they provide (I have also never been so exhausted).
The Navy also seems to be making more use of shore simulators, and I think this technology has come a long way. I am impressed for instance in the Arafura class training school that has been established in FBW, which I understand has the core equipment available to learn on, including control systems. One would hope that something similar is made for the Mogamis and Hunters.
Given the new Rolls Royce MT30 turbines that are coming in, I hope the Navy invests in new training equipment for the Sydney gas turbine school to go along with its LM2500s.