Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[hauritz]

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

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

Not sure what the status of the LOCSV is these days. The USN seems to have moved away from the concept and are looking at MUSVs instead. Means that if we are going to be fast followers we may also switch to a smaller vessel. Other options are going it alone on a LOCSV design or switch to something like the British Type 31, which is very much just a paper ship at this stage. The MUSV on the other hand sounds like it is ready for production.

Birdon Celebrates First Futures Graduate | Birdon Group

Naval architecture graduate Owen Spanswick becomes the first to complete Birdon's two-year Futures Graduate Program, now working as a Naval Architect in WA.

birdongroup.com

Interestingly these vessels are being built on spec. There hasn't been an official order from the USN. Makes me think our navy should consider leasing one of them for trial purposes.

Just looking into the future. The navy has already committed to several dozen Ghost Sharks, over 50 Bluebottles, Speartooth LUUVs, and likely to acquire Sea Archer and Longbow USV as well as a class of either MUSVs or LUSVs by the mid 2030s. That will probably be well over 100 autonomous vessels of various types. These will need to be maintained and we will need to work out how to deploy them and retrieve them. Huge task when you sit down and work out the logistics of it all. Then of course you will have huge amounts of data to process which will result in bandwidth issues. You then also have EW issues with adversaries either hacking, jamming or simply overwhelming our satellite communications with garbled junk data.

Introducing a huge fleet of drones means dealing with corrosion, bio-fouling, launch and recovery, EW, jamming, mechanical breakdown, preventative maintenance, recharging batteries and probably a whole bunch of other stuff we are yet to find out about.

 

[SammyC]

Not sure what the status of the LOCSV is these days. The USN seems to have moved away from the concept and are looking at MUSVs instead. Means that if we are going to be fast followers we may also switch to a smaller vessel. Other options are going it alone on a LOCSV design or switch to something like the British Type 31, which is very much just a paper ship at this stage. The MUSV on the other hand sounds like it is ready for production.

Birdon Celebrates First Futures Graduate | Birdon Group

Naval architecture graduate Owen Spanswick becomes the first to complete Birdon's two-year Futures Graduate Program, now working as a Naval Architect in WA.

birdongroup.com

Interestingly these vessels are being built on spec. There hasn't been an official order from the USN. Makes me think our navy should consider leasing one of them for trial purposes.

Just looking into the future. The navy has already committed to several dozen Ghost Sharks, over 50 Bluebottles, Speartooth LUUVs, and likely to acquire Sea Archer and Longbow USV as well as a class of either MUSVs or LUSVs by the mid 2030s. That will probably be well over 100 autonomous vessels of various types. These will need to be maintained and we will need to work out how to deploy them and retrieve them. Huge task when you sit down and work out the logistics of it all. Then of course you will have huge amounts of data to process which will result in bandwidth issues. You then also have EW issues with adversaries either hacking, jamming or simply overwhelming our satellite communications with garbled junk data.

Introducing a huge fleet of drones means dealing with corrosion, bio-fouling, launch and recovery, EW, jamming, mechanical breakdown, preventative maintenance, recharging batteries and probably a whole bunch of other stuff we are yet to find out about.

Yep. A bunch of war robots will require an army of maintenance robots to support them. Possibly some humans will be needed to scrape the barnacles off.

In regards to the LOSCV concept, I would be suprised if it makes it to the next IIR unchanged. The offboard weapons and sensor approach still works, just the technology is changing so fast, that what is cutting edge at the beginning of the year is behind the pack 12 months later. It is a big reason that drone procurements of any kind are being made in small batches, so that we don't end up with warehouse full of obsolete equipment.

I can't see the optionally crewed requirement making it into the production version at all, and I can see the build schedule comming way forward.

I remember reading that the five year ghost shark contract included annual product upgrades for instance, meaning that the 2031 units will likely be substantially more effective than then 2026 originals.

 

[spoz]

Not sure what the status of the LOCSV is these days. The USN seems to have moved away from the concept and are looking at MUSVs instead. Means that if we are going to be fast followers we may also switch to a smaller vessel. Other options are going it alone on a LOCSV design or switch to something like the British Type 31, which is very much just a paper ship at this stage. The MUSV on the other hand sounds like it is ready for production.

Type 91. - 31 is very definitely both more than a paper ship, and manned.

 

[Bob53]

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

You will not see any form of large scale manufacturing in Victoria for the foreseeable future. just speak to any business owner.

 

[Bob53]

Not sure what the status of the LOCSV is these days. The USN seems to have moved away from the concept and are looking at MUSVs instead. Means that if we are going to be fast followers we may also switch to a smaller vessel. Other options are going it alone on a LOCSV design or switch to something like the British Type 31, which is very much just a paper ship at this stage. The MUSV on the other hand sounds like it is ready for production.

Birdon Celebrates First Futures Graduate | Birdon Group

Naval architecture graduate Owen Spanswick becomes the first to complete Birdon's two-year Futures Graduate Program, now working as a Naval Architect in WA.

birdongroup.com

Interestingly these vessels are being built on spec. There hasn't been an official order from the USN. Makes me think our navy should consider leasing one of them for trial purposes.

Just looking into the future. The navy has already committed to several dozen Ghost Sharks, over 50 Bluebottles, Speartooth LUUVs, and likely to acquire Sea Archer and Longbow USV as well as a class of either MUSVs or LUSVs by the mid 2030s. That will probably be well over 100 autonomous vessels of various types. These will need to be maintained and we will need to work out how to deploy them and retrieve them. Huge task when you sit down and work out the logistics of it all. Then of course you will have huge amounts of data to process which will result in bandwidth issues. You then also have EW issues with adversaries either hacking, jamming or simply overwhelming our satellite communications with garbled junk data.

Introducing a huge fleet of drones means dealing with corrosion, bio-fouling, launch and recovery, EW, jamming, mechanical breakdown, preventative maintenance, recharging batteries and probably a whole bunch of other stuff we are yet to find out about.

The gov will probably just contract it out like base defence to an off shore company. It’s a very interesting point though. Part of the pitch for Unmanned systems is you don’t need a crew…

 

[iambuzzard]

You will not see any form of large scale manufacturing in Victoria for the foreseeable future. just speak to any business owner.

I am a small business owner. You're absolutely correct. I sell model kits of naval ships amongst other things and 4 major shops bigger than me have closed in the last 12 months. They had staff who lost their jobs, I don't have any.

 

[seaspear]

This article from the U.S goes into detail how the mq-25 will operate as refueling aircraft freeing up the S/H from this role ,I have wondered if the L.H.D,s could operate mq-25,s and Ghost bat even deploying Ghost shark from a cradle , would the deployment of unmanned drones from the deck of a Canberra class require arrestor cables and other assistance for the launching. Operating the L.H.D,s conventionally without drones and sending in helicopters first could put the helicopters at risk ,obviously Ukraine has shown previous assumptions on warfare has changed

 

[Stampede]

This article from the U.S goes into detail how the mq-25 will operate as refueling aircraft freeing up the S/H from this role ,I have wondered if the L.H.D,s could operate mq-25,s and Ghost bat even deploying Ghost shark from a cradle , would the deployment of unmanned drones from the deck of a Canberra class require arrestor cables and other assistance for the launching. Operating the L.H.D,s conventionally without drones and sending in helicopters first could put the helicopters at risk ,obviously Ukraine has shown previous assumptions on warfare has changed

Maybe a look at what Turkey are doing with regard to the unmanned stuff has some relevance re our shared common ships in the Canberra Class and their TCG Anadolu.

Cheers S

 

[seaspear]

Maybe a look at what Turkey are doing with regard to the unmanned stuff has some relevance re our shared common ships in the Canberra Class and their TCG Anadolu.

Cheers S

Maybe a look at what Turkey are doing with regard to the unmanned stuff has some relevance re our shared common ships in the Canberra Class and their TCG Anadolu.

Cheers S

Re the Anadolu it has the Smart -s Mk2 radar compared to the Canberra class Sea Giraffe , could there be value in an upgrade of the Canberras class radar ,it would likely be mounted significantly higher than any escorting ships radar

 

[ADMk2]

Add to the growing list of announcements that have been made previously (all the way back to 2017 from memory…)

2x Arafuras are going to be based at HMAS Cairns and here I was thinking they were spending $250m on upgrading HMAS Cairns for absolutely no reason whatsoever prior to today…

That is all.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2026-09-29/offshore-patrol-vessels-be-homeported-cairns-supporting-jobs-industry-north-queensland

 

[seaspear]

Would this work enable mooring of larger vessels like Mogami ?

 

[swerve]

Re the Anadolu it has the Smart -s Mk2 radar compared to the Canberra class Sea Giraffe , could there be value in an upgrade of the Canberras class radar ,it would likely be mounted significantly higher than any escorting ships radar

Sea Giraffe covers a range of radars. There are newer & more capable versions than those on the RAN's LHDs, & the model fitted to the LHDs is still in production, in a modernised & upgraded (including longer range) form.

Plenty of possible upgrades to the Canberra class's radar, including an upgraded Sea Giraffe AMB (the current model) or something from Thales, but I'm not sure Thales still offers Smart-S Mk2. It's been around for almost 20 years (though probably not quite the same as in 2007) & I don't see it on the Thales website now. The public datasheet is dated 2018.

 

[Stampede]

Re the Anadolu it has the Smart -s Mk2 radar compared to the Canberra class Sea Giraffe , could there be value in an upgrade of the Canberras class radar ,it would likely be mounted significantly higher than any escorting ships radar

Maybe someone better qualified could answer the question re radar choice.

As a general concept I’m surprised the ADF has not prioritised some larger unmanned platforms for the fleet.
The S100 sized aircraft appears well suited for OPVs sized vessels and upwards in size.
Its cancellation I found puzzling as I thought it was a great fit across the fleet.
The LHDs with their unique aviation centric layout ideally lends themselves to larger aircraft.
Without wanting to reignite the F35b debate, fixed wings do distance and perseverance better than rotors so a large ship capable fixed wing UAV appears to make sense.
Navy has some small stuff, but big is good for distance and larger loads.

Ghostbat is most likely not LHD compatible, but I’m sure there are other appropriate contenders.

Larger UAVs are game changing assets and should be complementary and not substitutes to other unmanned systems employed by the ADF both big and small.

Australia and its surrounds anre all about big distances and a task force needs these integral UAV assets going forward.

Cheers S

 

[SammyC]

Would this work enable mooring of larger vessels like Mogami ?

The media releases say it can take everything up to future Hunters and the oilers.

 

[ADMk2]

Maybe someone better qualified could answer the question re radar choice.

As a general concept I’m surprised the ADF has not prioritised some larger unmanned platforms for the fleet.
The S100 sized aircraft appears well suited for OPVs sized vessels and upwards in size.
Its cancellation I found puzzling as I thought it was a great fit across the fleet.
The LHDs with their unique aviation centric layout ideally lends themselves to larger aircraft.
Without wanting to reignite the F35b debate, fixed wings do distance and perseverance better than rotors so a large ship capable fixed wing UAV appears to make sense.
Navy has some small stuff, but big is good for distance and larger loads.

Ghostbat is most likely not LHD compatible, but I’m sure there are other appropriate contenders.

Larger UAVs are game changing assets and should be complementary and not substitutes to other unmanned systems employed by the ADF both big and small.

Australia and its surrounds anre all about big distances and a task force needs these integral UAV assets going forward.

Cheers S

Not if it detracts from the amphibious mission…

At least not according to the RAN. There are likely any number of roles you could adapt the Canberra Class for.

But nup. Purely for the amphibious mission and NOTHING else.

 

[Stampede]

Not if it detracts from the amphibious mission…

At least not according to the RAN. There are likely any number of roles you could adapt the Canberra Class for.

But nup. Purely for the amphibious mission and NOTHING else.

Probably take the view there will be no amphibious mission without aviation support!
In 2026 and beyond that will increasingly be unmanned assets.



Cheers S

 

[Reptilia]

What’s the deal with the Arafura class at CDI?, no announcement on sea trials(Pilbara) or Gippsland launch?

HMAS Arafura based in Cairns from Q1 2027 and another the same year(but which one?)
Would have thought 3 in Cairns + 3 in Darwin in addition to the ECapes.

 

[spoz]

Not if it detracts from the amphibious mission…

At least not according to the RAN. There are likely any number of roles you could adapt the Canberra Class for.

But nup. Purely for the amphibious mission and NOTHING else.

You have to understand the resistance of both the RAAF and parts of the bureaucracy to any suggestion that Navy should ever reacquire the ability to operate fixed wing at sea. It’s anathema to them at a very fundamental level. It breaches a central part of their beliefs (sorry South) to admit that anybody but a person in light blue has the intellectual, or other, capacity to conduct aerial warfare - or should get any budget to do so. And yes, I am biased and a little bitter. But I’ve also been involved in, and effected by, discussions where that position was put, and not too subtlety.

 

[iambuzzard]

Not if it detracts from the amphibious mission…

At least not according to the RAN. There are likely any number of roles you could adapt the Canberra Class for.

But nup. Purely for the amphibious mission and NOTHING else.

The powers that be are just stubborn and refuse to see the bleeding obvious!

 

[iambuzzard]

You have to understand the resistance of both the RAAF and parts of the bureaucracy to any suggestion that Navy should ever reacquire the ability to operate fixed wing at sea. It’s anathema to them at a very fundamental level. It breaches a central part of their beliefs (sorry South) to admit that anybody but a person in light blue has the intellectual, or other, capacity to conduct aerial warfare - or should get any budget to do so. And yes, I am biased and a little bitter. But I’ve also been involved in, and effected by, discussions where that position was put, and not too subtlety.

Politics in the military, who would have thunk it?
But that HAS to go out the window. The world has changed and we are facing a very real threat of war in our region. And it may not come from an obvious source.
The world is run by autocratic tyrants and anything can happen.