Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
It'd still take 2-3 years for the frigate build to start, and by the time it did, they'd have no workforce
oldsig
Just adding some extra frigates on the end of the production line will take decades to increase the RANs force structure over what has already been proposed.
To have a more rapid change you would have to increase the rate of production of the Future Frigate, slow the rate of retirement of the Anzacs or both.
Wasn't WA boasting about their new capability to build and maintain "frigate" sized vessels (and subs).
While I don't think we could go to building a frigate straight away, we might get away with just one OPV being built at Adelaide.
I doubt China is building a base in Vanuatu. But if they did, and is those sort of pressures that are realistic in our region would expect the DWP and also defense funding to change significantly. Not just navy either.
While I don't think we could go to building a frigate straight away, we might get away with just one OPV being built at Adelaide.
I doubt China is building a base in Vanuatu. But if they did, and is those sort of pressures that are realistic in our region would expect the DWP and also defense funding to change significantly. Not just navy either.
Jack Wyatt
Member
This article from USNI News concerning the Flight 11 San Antonio LPDs caught my interest. Besides rumours that the shipbuilder would like to fit Mk 41 to the Flight 11 build, the comment below is very interesting because of the SEA 5000 programme.
Navy Designates Upcoming LX(R) Amphibs as San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II - USNI News
“In my recent trip to San Diego, we could look up and down the waterfront and see five LPDs. Those guys help each other – if somebody has a problem, they’ve got resources down the pipe,” he said. “So having 26 ships divided around the world allows commonality of parts, commonality of training, sailors that can cross-deck and earn their qualifications. It gives us great flexibility and it saves us from creating a whole other pipeline of accession and training. So it’s been one of the selling points of going to Flight II.”
Navy Designates Upcoming LX(R) Amphibs as San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II - USNI News
“In my recent trip to San Diego, we could look up and down the waterfront and see five LPDs. Those guys help each other – if somebody has a problem, they’ve got resources down the pipe,” he said. “So having 26 ships divided around the world allows commonality of parts, commonality of training, sailors that can cross-deck and earn their qualifications. It gives us great flexibility and it saves us from creating a whole other pipeline of accession and training. So it’s been one of the selling points of going to Flight II.”
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The fastest effective way to increase the RAN force structure (from a combat capability perspective) would most likely be for the SEA 1180 vessels to get a more comprehensive sensor and weapons fitout that would normally be found aboard an OPV.
Yes, the RAN might be able to bring forward the SEA 5000 production a little bit, and possibly increase the pace of construction (IIRC once it gets going, it is supposed to be a vessel every 18 months or so), and/or keep more of the ANZAC-class and/or Adelaide-class frigates in service for a longer period of time. What will also be an issue that the RAN will have to address, especially since the RAN will also need to crew SEA 1180 OPV's (whether they are up-gunned or not), is raising, training, and sustaining crews for both the currently planned major vessels, but any of the suggested hypothetical vessels. Having a fleet of 15+ destroyers and frigates is of little import if there are only sufficient crews for 12... Now it might be possible to adjust the personnel assigned to short and training establishments to surge additional vessels, but that is a short-term solution which cannot be carried for long and if attempted for too long, will actually result in fewer personnel available over time as personnel leave the service, and replacements are not trained to the same standards because of a lack of training establishments.
The RAN would need to be proactive in both retaining more of the existing RAN personnel than normal, as well as recruiting and training new personnel in a larger volume than is normally done, this likely need to be at least concurrent with increasing the fleet size, if not initiated prior to working to expand the fleet.
I doubt China will seek to build a base in Vanuatu right away. However I could easily see them laying the ground work for a naval base by funding/building expanded deepwater port facilities for 'cruise ships' and then conducting regular showing-the-flag missions. A similar situation could occur with either expanding or adding an additional airfield capable of handling international flights. China could also seek to expand influence by carrying out similar activities elsewhere in the S. Pacific, as I recall China had been expanding ties with nearby Fiji for some time as well.
Something that Australia, the US, and NZ will need to start getting more used to, is the presence of Chinese assets nearby, likely on harvesting missions. 2014 comes to mind as an example, when a Chinese task force engaged in an exercise between Sumatra and Christmas Island.
Joe Black
Active Member
Never say never, see what they have done to the islands in South China sea.
As for the implication for RAN, this might mean a rethink on just having a fleet base East that will host larger ships, FFH/FFG and upwards. Perhaps HMAS Moreton might get a new lease of life.
I suspect the two will be necessary noting the 'new' shipyard is being constructed. The OPVs will be built at the existing ASC facilities. Certainly the new yard (if it lives up to the hype) should be able to increase production speed
Remove the bigoted commentary and apologize within 24 hours or find yourself on an extended vacation, as such content doesn't belong here.
-Preceptor
I've noticed a few times it's been mentioned that the RAN will not be fully loading every VLS cell, so calls for more VLS aren't needed.
Is it a matter of cost, or RAN simply doesn't think our region is dangerous enough to warrant the missiles. I apologise if this is something under assumed knowledge in this forum. I would have assumed you'd fill every VLS. It's like sending a soldier out on patrol, but only filling his 30 bullet magazine with 10 bullets, imho.
If Australasia is so safe, why have more than 16 VLS?
I can understand about cost.From this naval blog, you can see even just ONE ESSM costs USD$2.2 million!
Navy Matters: FY19 Weapons Procurement Costs
Filling 450-600 VLS will cost billions.
Manpower is always going to be an issue for Australia.
In the short term upgunning the OPVs would be one option. In the longer term Australia might have to consider building corvettes or light frigates to supplement its larger ships.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
That cost seems off. Per the USN ESSM fact file
As for what the RAN's policy is on missile loadouts, I honestly have no knowledge, but I suspect there is some sort of threat matrix which deployments are run through. A case in point being that not every time an ANZAC-class frigate goes out is it fitted with a pair of quad Harpoon AShM cells. I would assume that something similar is done with respect to the number of ESSM ans SM-1/SM-2 missiles carried.
I also believe the role of a given vessel during a deployment will impact the VLS cell loadout. Some deployments, a vessel might carry more SM-2/3/6, while others might call for more ESSM. It is rather hard to predict since one does not know what missiles the RAN is looking to get into the overall warstock, beyond what is already in service. VLS LACM's could provide a task force with a strike capability, and/or a long-ranged AShM capability beyond what the Harpoon can do.
Unless changes occur with the SEA 1180 and/or SEA 5000 projects, the Australian yards are going to be occupied building the OPV's, frigates (or destroyers...) conducting maintenance on the existing RAN fleet, and preparing to construct the Collins-class replacements. So the production facilities are going to be occupied, and there would still be the issue of the RAN having sufficient trained personnel to crew a dozen of the OPV's, the three Hobart-class AWD's, and whatever mix of SEA 5000 and ANZAC-class frigates are in service when this third class starts to enter service. Not to mention that would need to be additional funding to provide for the construction of additional vessels, kitting them out, and then expanding the munitions stockpile to accommodate arming the planned and additional vessels.
which is slight more than a third of the price listed in the blog. Similarly, the DSCA has a listing for a 2018 sale to Finland of up to 68 ESSM, plus associated canisters, shipping containers, spare and repair parts, support, training and documentation for USD$112.7 mil. If it was that amount for just the missiles, it would work out to about USD$1.65 mil. per missile.
As for what the RAN's policy is on missile loadouts, I honestly have no knowledge, but I suspect there is some sort of threat matrix which deployments are run through. A case in point being that not every time an ANZAC-class frigate goes out is it fitted with a pair of quad Harpoon AShM cells. I would assume that something similar is done with respect to the number of ESSM ans SM-1/SM-2 missiles carried.
I also believe the role of a given vessel during a deployment will impact the VLS cell loadout. Some deployments, a vessel might carry more SM-2/3/6, while others might call for more ESSM. It is rather hard to predict since one does not know what missiles the RAN is looking to get into the overall warstock, beyond what is already in service. VLS LACM's could provide a task force with a strike capability, and/or a long-ranged AShM capability beyond what the Harpoon can do.
Adding additional warships is most likely not possible unless it is done instead of the SEA 1180 vessels, and would likely be at least a medium-term endeavour. Looking at the SEA 5000 timeline, the project was brought forward and started in 2015. Construction is not anticipated to start until some time in 2020 for the lead ship, with entry into service not happening until some time in the late 2020's.
Unless changes occur with the SEA 1180 and/or SEA 5000 projects, the Australian yards are going to be occupied building the OPV's, frigates (or destroyers...) conducting maintenance on the existing RAN fleet, and preparing to construct the Collins-class replacements. So the production facilities are going to be occupied, and there would still be the issue of the RAN having sufficient trained personnel to crew a dozen of the OPV's, the three Hobart-class AWD's, and whatever mix of SEA 5000 and ANZAC-class frigates are in service when this third class starts to enter service. Not to mention that would need to be additional funding to provide for the construction of additional vessels, kitting them out, and then expanding the munitions stockpile to accommodate arming the planned and additional vessels.
Add to the cost the fact that the weapons have a finite shelf life, so need (at least) upgrading and at worst replacing if not used first. I can't imagine there's a lot of residual value in an unstable warhead either!
As for installing large numbers of VLS tubes and not filling them - consider that a ship in refit won't be using *any*, a ship engaged in tasks away from major conflict might need few and so forth. If all of the frigates are able to carry a load of (for example) 64 missiles, then the few that may need them can do so from a pool smaller than necessary to outfil all of them.
Your soldier analogy is wrong. I patrolled with several hundred rounds of 7.62, but at base I stood pay guard with three 9mm rounds... Didn't need my ammo pouches full.
oldsig
Joe Black
Active Member
Preceptor, I apologise if it comes across as bigoted comment, but let me suggest that being an Australia Chinese, originally from Singapore and having been interacting with many mainland chinese folks both here and overseas, we can look at ourselves, recognise our ethnic trades as an insight to help Australia deal with China. I am proud to be a Chinese Australia standing on the side of Australia and to defend Australia's interest. I am simply pointing out how the Chinese Communist party is playing this strategic game to counter the "west". It was not about simply taking a swipe at my own race.
Perhaps you never thought this was the case.
In any case, I will remove my post, but I do wish that not everything we post here and misconstrued.
ps. I apologise again, I can't edit or delete the post as it won't allow me to do so saying that 30 mins has already past. Please feel free to remove it.
Last edited:
I'm so behind the 8 ball in this forum. Never considered obsolescence and didn't know about the ammo either. Thanks!
However, I do wonder about inventory. If you don't have enough for all x12 7000t ships, then there certainly won't be any refills. Missiles take ages to be built. The US is only getting 25 LRASM in 2019, for example.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It depends on the missile and the production line. IIRC at one point the Tomahawk cruise missile production line was putting out a missile a day. 25 LRASM works out to about one missile every two weeks, which is about half the production rate for B737's... Depending on demand and the level of funding, production for missiles could be ramped up. However I do not believe that the US has settled on a final configuration for the the LRASM as it is still in flight testing AFAIK, and has yet to be integrated with USAF and USN aircraft.
Also even with the RAN surging deployment of major surface vessels, it would be unlikely that more than eight vessels of either the Hobart-class or the SEA 5000 design would be deployed, never mind operating somewhere where it would be advisable to have all VLS cells fully loaded. Now the actual size of the ADF's warstocks are unknown, but it is likely that Australia has more missiles than all the VLS cells currently in service, just not necessarily by a significant margin. As the number of VLS cells in RAN service increase, the total Australian missile warstock is likely to increase, but again not necessarily by a significant amount. Not every deployment will be to an active warzone and therefore not every missile possible needs to be loaded all the time.
Additional warships in the short term are unlikely. There should be some spare building capacity after SEA1180 wraps up in 10 or 12 years. Australia will have to look at replacing the Huons around that time so maybe that could be combined into a single new class.
Until then we only have what we already have. Even the new frigates might not be in service in any real numbers until the 2030s. Mind you the navy and airforce already have some fairly impressive assets at their disposal so I don't see this being a big problem. Even if China were to secure bases in this part of the world it could take decades for them to become any sort of real security threat.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Actually I doubt it would take years for China to present Australia with a security threat. Direct force projection might be a decade or more away, but I would not be surprised if more "fishing vessels" start lurking in international waters near major Australia ports, and/or transit choke points for RAN ships and subs. All the while trying to soak up as much ELINT and SIGINT as possible.
As for there being spare capacity maybe starting around 2030... Perhaps, but crews will still be a problem unless a very small number of additional ships are constructed. An ocean-going corvette like the German K130 requires a crew of ~65, while the Turkish Ada-class corvette requires ~90, or about twice the expected crew of the SEA 1180 OPV's of the Huon-class MHC. Also, the more capable and broad spectrum the hypothetical corvette class is, the greater the need for a larger and skilled crew.
Joe Black
Active Member
Does anyone know when is the expected completion time for the HMAS Perth CEAFAR2 upgrade? Can't wait to read something on how well the CEAFAR2 actually perform and what additional capabilities it brings to the FFH. I might swing past Henderson one of these days to see if I can spot it from afar 
Jack Wyatt
Member
Perth had some work done (I read it was around December 2016). Arunta is the first to undergo the full mid life upgrade which includes more powerful diesels, hopefully a more powerful GT, upgraded air-conditioning as well as other changes.Does anyone know when is the expected completion time for the HMAS Perth CEAFAR2 upgrade? Can't wait to read something on how well the CEAFAR2 actually perform and what additional capabilities it brings to the FFH. I might swing past Henderson one of these days to see if I can spot it from afar
BAE Systems prepares for Anzac midlife upgrade, as eighth ship completes ASMD
- Status