Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Not pointing at Todjaeger in perticular, but over the years I have seen similar comments ( Collins, Adelaide,Anzac) with no follow up.
Its almost as if the right vessel was not ordered at the right time so lets shrug our shoulders and do nothing.
OK can not change the past, can not turn OPVs into full combatants. Look to the future.
Given the timelines for modern warships the replacement for the Hobarts, if not the Hunters and Arafuras should already in the design stage.
What is the criteria for a modern warship, power generation?, intergrated systems?,stealth?, speed?, range?
What is the criteria for its armament, missiles?, HVPs?, directed energy?
Without wishing for the starship Enterprise where should we be headed?

As I understand how military projects develop and the various phases progress, along with the timeframes, the projects start with a project definition phase. This is where the requirements for whatever is to be ordered are laid out in terms of what is a must-have, what would be nice to have, etc. Trying to get something right into the design stage when the requirements yet have to be set would IMO be rather premature. Similarly, trying to force the requirements through could easily lead to faulty assessments of what is and will be required. Take the current rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific region? Could the current environment have been accurately forecasted when SEA 1180 was first proposed in the 2009 DWP? That is around the time the project which ultimately led to the Arafura-class procurement got started. Or back when the 2013 DWP came out? Going through the timeline for the OPV's, the designers/designs were short-listed to three entries in April of 2016, with the final selection being announced 19 months later. Roughly 18 months after that, the lead ship was finally laid down.

It would also be worth noting for many of the Oz participants as well as observers of Oz military and naval projects, that within roughly the last decade, the average timeframe for a major Oz project was ~14 years between project being initiated and either IOC or FOC for lead units (I cannot remember which one GF stated it was) being reached. I would hope that at this point, that long timeframe has been able to get shortened somewhat, but it is still something which will be measured in years. Heck, the final selection process and then contract signing can easily run 18 months to two years, and that is assuming no major stuffups or legal challenges issued by failed bidders and vendors.

As much as many would seem to like, major procurements are going to take time. Even the RAAF SHornet order took ~three years for the first aircraft to enter Australian airspace, and that was with the USN permitting the RAAF order to jump the queue of USN orders and the SHornet being quite similar to Classic Hornets in RAAF service which enabled pilots to transition to the new aircraft faster. Trying to change the design of something already under or set to begin construction is going to be problematic at best. Particularly if there would be changes to major systems and/or long lead-time items.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm sorry but I respectfully disagree and feel your sarcasm is misplaced.

I have suggested adding some modern air defence to the OPV, not make them corvettes as you imply. Searam fits the bill well. I disagree with your implication that adding Searam would be so labour intensive that our sailors couldn't manage it. Given a RAN officer suggested the same thing recently I don't feel that I am expressing a opinion that leaves me uncomfortably out on limb.

I have not suggested massive and impossible changes like VLS, powerful radars etc. as you imply.

I have not suggested major increases in fleet numbers but I have pointed out these are the only hulls the RAN are getting in the near future.
Yes, we have started the major combatants projects, which are running behind schedule and seemingly plagued by issues.

IMO there are two, rather glaring issues with ideas about fitting SeaRAM to the OPV's.

The first one being that the RAN has not, at least publicly, committed to adopting SeaRAM. Therefore, in order for the Arafura-class OPV's to get kitted out with SeaRAM, Australia would need to do everything which would be involved in adding a new missile and self-contained missile launcher and targeting system to the RAN inventory. While this would of course cover some of the obvious things like ordering a supply of missiles and the launchers themselves, it would also require other things which many seem to overlook. In addition to warstock missiles, training missiles would likely be needed, as munitions storage would need to be set aside for RAM. An initial intake of operators and maintainers would need to be trained and qualified, and the RAN would also need to establish some way of getting future operators and maintainers trained and qualified. This could mean that the RAN establishes a training programme for the SeaRAM domestically, or enters into a training agreement with the USN where RAN personnel are sent to the US for whatever USN training on SeaRAM is offered. In short though, adopting a new system like SeaRAM is a rather involved process (which is one of the reasons why I would prefer the RAN at least standardize on a single small calibre gun type) and IMO is not really worthwhile for a system like SeaRAM unless it would see more widespread use across RAN vessels.

The next glaring issue, which also somewhat relates to the RAN adopting SeaRAM, or possibly why they still have not, is what SeaRAM is. In a nutshell, SeaRAM is a missile-based CIWS with an 11-missile capacity launcher, with a range of up to ~10 km. While they are indeed modern, particularly if Block 2 missiles are acquired, they are part of a CIWS which is for last-ditch self-defence from aerial threats and not an air defense system. For those who might disagree, consider this question: Would you feel comfortable if the Mk 41 VLS and 32 quad-packed ESSM available aboard the ANZAC-class frigates were removed and instead replaced with a trio of SeaRAM launchers, providing a total of 33 missiles?

To my mind, even if all the hoops involved in getting SeaRAM into RAN service and then fitted aboard the Arafura-class OPV's (and the redesign work involved) were gotten through, would it really be worth it? An OPV with a 40 mm gun and SeaRAM is still not going to provide much if any real additional capability to a task force because it would still be entirely too limited in terms of sensors and weapons fitted. The lack of a hangar and helicopter magazine would limit the ability to support and sustain naval helicopters to being able to lily pad and/or refuel them away from their host vessel. The one area where a capability might be provided would be in MCM if an effective containerized MCM system were to be adopted, though TBH I would rather the RAN have dedicated MCM vessels built using the hull of the Arafura-class as a base to start from, rather than trying to backfit MCM onto OPV's.

 

[MickB]

As I understand how military projects develop and the various phases progress, along with the timeframes, the projects start with a project definition phase. This is where the requirements for whatever is to be ordered are laid out in terms of what is a must-have, what would be nice to have, etc. Trying to get something right into the design stage when the requirements yet have to be set would IMO be rather premature. Similarly, trying to force the requirements through could easily lead to faulty assessments of what is and will be required. Take the current rising tensions in the Asia-Pacific region? Could the current environment have been accurately forecasted when SEA 1180 was first proposed in the 2009 DWP? That is around the time the project which ultimately led to the Arafura-class procurement got started. Or back when the 2013 DWP came out? Going through the timeline for the OPV's, the designers/designs were short-listed to three entries in April of 2016, with the final selection being announced 19 months later. Roughly 18 months after that, the lead ship was finally laid down.

It would also be worth noting for many of the Oz participants as well as observers of Oz military and naval projects, that within roughly the last decade, the average timeframe for a major Oz project was ~14 years between project being initiated and either IOC or FOC for lead units (I cannot remember which one GF stated it was) being reached. I would hope that at this point, that long timeframe has been able to get shortened somewhat, but it is still something which will be measured in years. Heck, the final selection process and then contract signing can easily run 18 months to two years, and that is assuming no major stuffups or legal challenges issued by failed bidders and vendors.

As much as many would seem to like, major procurements are going to take time. Even the RAAF SHornet order took ~three years for the first aircraft to enter Australian airspace, and that was with the USN permitting the RAAF order to jump the queue of USN orders and the SHornet being quite similar to Classic Hornets in RAAF service which enabled pilots to transition to the new aircraft faster. Trying to change the design of something already under or set to begin construction is going to be problematic at best. Particularly if there would be changes to major systems and/or long lead-time items.

Thank you for taking the time to give an informative reply.
The length of time stated for completion of a major project, tells me that the replacement for the Hobarts should already be under consideration.
This will be more important if the drumbeat for the Hunters is sped up (in response to the political climate) as some have suggested.

Point taken about requirements first, then design.
This is kind of what I alluded to with questions on the criteria for modern warships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thank you for taking the time to give an informative reply.
The length of time stated for completion of a major project, tells me that the replacement for the Hobarts should already be under consideration.
This will be more important if the drumbeat for the Hunters is sped up (in response to the political climate) as some have suggested.

Point taken about requirements first, then design.
This is kind of what I alluded to with questions on the criteria for modern warships.

As I understand the process, the kick off time for a programme which would consider and provide a replacement for a major RAN fleet unit should likely be around the same time as the MLU is being done, and quite possibly take into consideration what the MLU added/changed aboard the warships in question. Given how recently the Hobart-class DDG has entered service, I would anticipate this programme starting some time towards the end of this decade or in the early 2030's. As a side note, whenever it kicks off, it will likely be going for a year or more before it progresses far enough to get assigned a programme number.

As long as the national shipbuilding programme can be kept ticking along with orders, despite changes in gov't, then IMO the specific programmes to replace ship classes in commission becomes less important. I suspect that the time, costs, and contracting required to get an additional vessel or two added onto an already order will be much easier to accomplish than getting an entirely new ship class designed and ordered due to a change in perceived threat environment.

 

[Stampede]

It's all a game of risk and reward though. Does our putative enemy think it's worth expending a high end ASM against a coastal patrol vessel? Why? Should we expend effort and treasure up-gunning them, and scarce highly skilled crew manning them rather than use both crew and money on ships that the enemy is much more likely to care about and attack?

I'm pretty much baffled by the obsession with turning OPVs into half arsed MFU. It might make some sense if done in isolation from questions of finance, training, need, CONOPS, politics, public opinion and competing interests, but the discussion sounds more like my son and a group of table top war gamers trying to stretch the limits of their allocated army/navy size against a set of very unreal-world rules.

oldsig

Table top war gamers anyone!

Sure it's good to be reminded that looking at your boys own book of planes ,tanks and ships doesn't make you an defense expert.
Some of us have more experience on particular subjects than others and I trust we are all on DT to learn and share.
We don't all have the same opinions and at times debate can become heated and to many frustrating.

But if we stop the conversation and bunker down into" like tribes" with the same stuff regurgitated as fact then this is not to the benefit of conversation.
The same can be said to wild fanciful propositions without substance and reality.
This is equally damaging and needs a response.

The OPV chat is perplexing.

The Arafura Class will probably be around out to 2060.

When the last ship of the class retires will it look the same as the first commissioned in 2022 ?
Will all twenty ships never fire a shot in anger or be put into harms way?
Will they ever be asked to perform roles they were not intended or designed to perform?

Questions without an answer in 2021.

History can guide us.
Conflict does not have a script and you go and make do with what you've got.

Simple


Regards S









I

 

[StingrayOZ]

The biggest issue is man power. Crewing, training, implementation, project management. Man power has a huge cost and is a key finite resource. Anything that increases the manpower cost in anyway long term is going to be a big negative. Over the life of the ship the cost of crewing it is likely to be the largest overall cost for the entire capability. For Australia in particular, man power is always in short supply, and takes significant time and resources to change.

Any new system would also have fairly massive restraints and cost, any integration of any new or existing system onto a new platform can also have huge costs and be back breaking. For example Japan integrating LRASM on its F-15 has been abandoned. Phalanx is a whole program on its own, to purchase, upgrade, maintain and train that capability.

Then is it even possible and is its tactically useful and does it fit within the strategy and CONOPs.

I am skeptical of SeaRAM. Its expensive to acquire, train and operate. It is a new weapon system and would compete with our resources with Phalanx. I'm not sure it is that tactically useful particularly on something like an OPV, its the wrong platform for that kind of weapon. There is no space and weight to fit anything like that on OPV80. Lurrsen certainly doesn't think so, and as a ship designer, fitting dreamy weapons system into a design they would be the most optimistic and for them that would mean stepping up to a OPV90 hull a significant two sizes larger.

We could step up to OPV90, now your crewing is up at 90 instead of 40. So we go from 20 OPV's to <10 or similar type of reduction on crewing alone. Not only that, it could fit a mk56. But Jesus, that is going to be a miles better system, particularly with ESSM block II. SeaRAM problem is you tend to end up fitting something better or less capable instead. But you can also go with a 76mm and 4xRBS15 or NSM. Price is going up significantly, and you are building a completely different ship and mimic anzac levels of capabilities and then you look at the crewing size of a hunter, and ask if a hunter is worth more than 1.5 OPV90's.

Do we need that? Or do we need more real OPV's that give Australia a significant hull presence? At the moment, we struggle with presence, and even non state actors, ie fishers, drug smugglers, people smugglers turn up all the time, uncontested. If China pressed us with their great fishing fleet, we would be in all sorts of problems maintaining the integrity of our EEZ and waters and territory.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

I'm finding it a little ironic that some are supposedly frustrated at this discussion about increasing the armament of the Arafuras when it was sparked by an article on the Navy's own website by a serving officer arguing exactly for that, and not to mention that said people have very much been part of the conversation. That said, I do get that it can become tiresome when the discussion seems to take leave of realism.

Personally, I do think that all this talk about the necessity of urgent increases in defence capabilities is overblown. I mean, I actually welcome it in a way because generally mainstream Australians don't place enough importance on our defence. Yes, we pay respect to those who served on Anzac Day, but do we take any notice of the motto of the RSL? Still, the threat of China, while real, must be understood in context. We're not alone here, obviously. And it's not just the US that is confronting China, but Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - all of which have more powerful navies than we do.

I agree with the greater investment in defence, which is occurring. I'm not sure I agree there is a pressing need to invest more in our OPVs to make them more potent. I'm sure there would be better ways to spend the money.

If we were to look at investing in a more powerful surface force to be in service sooner rather than later, then I agree with ngatimozart that we'd want a larger vessel than the OPVs. Actually, I think the best way to go would be to order some Freedom-class litoral combat ships. Small crews, good range and speed, well armed. Build them in the US so you get them faster. But, again, it's not plausible as the world stands.

 

[protoplasm]

Actually, I think the best way to go would be to order some Freedom-class litoral combat ships. Small crews, good range and speed, well armed. Build them in the US so you get them faster.

!!!!! That would be not be a class of ship which would be considered for delivering a useful capability to the RAN. If the parent Navy for a ship class is looking for the fastest way to not have those ships in their fleet that probably says something about their utility. There have been numerous issues in their development which are unresolved.

Navy Calls Freedom LCS Propulsion Problem Class-Wide Defect, Won’t Take New Ships Until Fixed - USNI News
Now Is The Perfect Time To Sink The Freedom Class Littoral Combat Ship (forbes.com)

This is not something to be even considered, and the mere suggestion will be another source of frustration to our DEFPRO group.

For all discussions in this space it must always be remembered, what do you want the ships to actually do? (the concept of operations) then build the ship to be able to do that. Our ANZAC class is a classic example of the compromises that you need to make when you try to push a hull to achieve more than it was originally designed to do. There are always means to modify ships, but the path to do it quickly becomes not worth the hassle or treasure. Therefore, go back, start with the CONOPS and ensure that your designed ship can do those things.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'm finding it a little ironic that some are supposedly frustrated at this discussion about increasing the armament of the Arafuras when it was sparked by an article on the Navy's own website by a serving officer arguing exactly for that, and not to mention that said people have very much been part of the conversation. That said, I do get that it can become tiresome when the discussion seems to take leave of realism.

Personally, I do think that all this talk about the necessity of urgent increases in defence capabilities is overblown. I mean, I actually welcome it in a way because generally mainstream Australians don't place enough importance on our defence. Yes, we pay respect to those who served on Anzac Day, but do we take any notice of the motto of the RSL? Still, the threat of China, while real, must be understood in context. We're not alone here, obviously. And it's not just the US that is confronting China, but Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - all of which have more powerful navies than we do.

I agree with the greater investment in defence, which is occurring. I'm not sure I agree there is a pressing need to invest more in our OPVs to make them more potent. I'm sure there would be better ways to spend the money.

If we were to look at investing in a more powerful surface force to be in service sooner rather than later, then I agree with ngatimozart that we'd want a larger vessel than the OPVs. Actually, I think the best way to go would be to order some Freedom-class litoral combat ships. Small crews, good range and speed, well armed. Build them in the US so you get them faster. But, again, it's not plausible as the world stands.

Good grief, why would you want to saddle the RAN one of the LCS? The most recent price I came across was from an order placed for a Freedom-class back in 2015, which was USD$362 mil. for the vessel and base armament, and did not include any of the mission modules. Not taking into account inflation, that would mean for about AUD$500 mil. one could get a frigate-sized vessel with about half the range of other RAN vessels, and slight better weapons fitout than the Arafura-class OPV's are currently planned to have. In order to get it to have a decent weapons loadout, that would in turn cost yet more money as mission modules are procured, and essentially the entire design would require the RAN to adopt and familiarize it with operating and supporting an entirely new range of weapons, electronics and sensors. For those who might still think this is a good idea, please really think about why the USN and US gov't cut the planned LCS order plan from 55 vessels down to 32 vessels, and then chose to adopt the new Constellation-class multi-role frigate with greater offensive and defensive capabilities instead of ordering further LCS.

As for why there might be so much irritation on the part of some, regarding ideas floated about increasing the armament of the OPV, and/or making it a more combat capable vessel, I would hazard a guess that it is for a similar reason to why "fantasy fleets" are so frowned upon. They almost always lead to people going so far down rabbit holes that discussion loses grounding in reality. Proposals which require Australia to have an ever full pocket of money, industrial capacity, time, or suitable crew are going to get short shrift because there is not point in attempting to discuss it.

As we have in the Australian Army thread, there are capability sets which are being looked at, but the trade off needs to be examined because there is limited funding and getting both options does not seem possible currently. The same very much applies to the RAN and especially ordering new vessels and/or changing their weapons and electronics fitouts.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

This is not something to be even considered, and the mere suggestion will be another source of frustration to our DEFPRO group.

Please read everything else I wrote, not just one par at the end. You conveniently didn't include my last line that it's not plausible. Obviously no one would want a vessel with problems; it's more the general capabilities on paper that I was referencing (size, speed, range, armament). I don't disagree their development has been troubled. (That's sadly far from unusual with defence procurement.)

 

[Anthony_B_78]

As for why there might be so much irritation on the part of some, regarding ideas floated about increasing the armament of the OPV, and/or making it a more combat capable vessel, I would hazard a guess that it is for a similar reason to why "fantasy fleets" are so frowned upon. They almost always lead to people going so far down rabbit holes that discussion loses grounding in reality. Proposals which require Australia to have an ever full pocket of money, industrial capacity, time, or suitable crew are going to get short shrift because there is not point in attempting to discuss it.

Appreciate all of that, and I said such discussions can become tiresome when realism seems to fall by the wayside. My point was it seems to be ironic that we're getting this complaint when what sparked it was an article by a serving officer that is hosted on the Navy's own website, and further that defence professionals and moderators are actively taking part in the discussion.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm finding it a little ironic that some are supposedly frustrated at this discussion about increasing the armament of the Arafuras when it was sparked by an article on the Navy's own website by a serving officer arguing exactly for that, and not to mention that said people have very much been part of the conversation. That said, I do get that it can become tiresome when the discussion seems to take leave of realism.

Personally, I do think that all this talk about the necessity of urgent increases in defence capabilities is overblown. I mean, I actually welcome it in a way because generally mainstream Australians don't place enough importance on our defence. Yes, we pay respect to those who served on Anzac Day, but do we take any notice of the motto of the RSL? Still, the threat of China, while real, must be understood in context. We're not alone here, obviously. And it's not just the US that is confronting China, but Japan, South Korea, Taiwan - all of which have more powerful navies than we do.

I agree with the greater investment in defence, which is occurring. I'm not sure I agree there is a pressing need to invest more in our OPVs to make them more potent. I'm sure there would be better ways to spend the money.

If we were to look at investing in a more powerful surface force to be in service sooner rather than later, then I agree with ngatimozart that we'd want a larger vessel than the OPVs. Actually, I think the best way to go would be to order some Freedom-class litoral combat ships. Small crews, good range and speed, well armed. Build them in the US so you get them faster. But, again, it's not plausible as the world stands.

Jeez the Freedom Class? You don't belong to the WA mafia do you? TBH I don't like the Freedom Class because there have been to many problems with them.

I think the real question that has to be asked is whether or not the RAN has enough surface combatants?

• If not RAN and Defence put business case to the Federal Government for funding to increase the Surface Combat Fleet.
• Will the current DDG and / or FFG numbers be increased?
  • If yes by how many?
• If no, introduce a new capability.
  • What will this capability's CONOPS be?
  • What will it's size be?
  • Crew numbers?
  • Armament and sensors etc?
  • Range?
  • How many?
  • Cost?
  • Where built?
  • Built by whom?
  • Material built from?
    • Steel?
    • Aluminium?
• How quickly can any of these options be introduced into service?

So that is some of what has to be considered.

 

[Anthony_B_78]

Jeez the Freedom Class? You don't belong to the WA mafia do you? TBH I don't like the Freedom Class because there have been to many problems with them.

I don't have the credentials to join said mafia. I should certainly have said "something like the Freedom-class, on paper". As in, the key capabilities they are supposed to deliver. A warship optimised for operations in the litorals, with strong surface and ASW capabilities.

Absolutely agree that all those questions would need to be answered, and yeah you have to get past that first one, does the RAN need more surface combatants? Also, does it need them urgently? That is, couldn't they just extend planned programs and build them up over time? And before that first question, does the RAN need more surface combatants, or do we need to invest in another defence capability, or do we need to at all?

And, yeah, as I said a few posts ago, I actually think this drive to urgently increase our defence capabilities beyond what the government has planned, in the face of a rising China, is a little overblown.

 

[protoplasm]

Please read everything else I wrote, not just one par at the end. You conveniently didn't include my last line that it's not plausible. Obviously no one would want a vessel with problems; it's more the general capabilities on paper that I was referencing (size, speed, range, armament). I don't disagree their development has been troubled. (That's sadly far from unusual with defence procurement.)

Apologies, I'm not trying to be flippant, and it may be just that the example of the Freedom class is probably unhelpful in characterising the general capabilities of size, speed, range, armament.

Size, ~3,500 tons for a corvette type vessel is reasonable and probably gives you a workable margin generally.
Speed, 40+ knots enables you to get places quicker than otherwise, but also led to significant design compromises throughout the rest of the ship systems. Those compromises are leading to significant unreliability, and lead to a significant issue in the Australian context...
Range, the Freedom class range is quoted as in the region 3,000 - 3,500nm. This is significantly less than what would be useful in the Australian context, and makes it inappropriate for the RAN. It is worth noting that the Arafura's likely have a longer range than the Freedom class at only half the tonnage.
Armament is only slightly more than the Arafuras.

As Todjaeger pointed out the cost is significant for the Freedom class already, let alone if modified to meet Australian CONOPS.

The idea of a vessel of 3-4000 tonnes, that is able to defend itself from subsomic AShM threats, as well as aircraft/UAV, and contribute to ASuW and ASW has some merit, but then we are talking about a long-range corvette rather than a constabulatory patrol vessel. The treasure needed to build, man and maintain such a vessel then needs to be considered within the operations of our entire fleet.

 

[Todjaeger]

Appreciate all of that, and I said such discussions can become tiresome when realism seems to fall by the wayside. My point was it seems to be ironic that we're getting this complaint when what sparked it was an article by a serving officer that is hosted on the Navy's own website, and further that defence professionals and moderators are actively taking part in the discussion.

Regardless of what might have sparked discussion, if things have drifted into areas of unreality...

One suggestion raised recently would require modifying the OPV's so that they could provide an ASW capability. My own personal opinion is that the RAN could indeed use more ASW capability than it currently has, and possibly more than is currently being planned for once the Hunter-class FFG's enter service. However, taking a platform designed and built as an OPV and turning it into an effective ASW platform would be a task that I would consider unrealistic. Similarly, if people had the idea that the OPV's could be used as radar and/or ASW pickets around an area of operations or around a TF, the current fitout and any realistic fitout would be problematic.

Take the ASW example for instance. The Hunter-class FFG is intended to be a very capable frigate in terms of ASW capabilities, but this means much more than just including sonar, or even a towed sonar array. IIRC the Hunter-class hull was specifically designed to have a lower acoustic signature, and the machinery spaces are to have kit mounted in ways that reduce radiated noise. If similar measures were not done with the design and then construction of the Arafura-class OPV, then any ability to detect potential subs will have to first overcome/filter through any noises radiating from the OPV itself. Further, ASW is a task best carried out in layers. While the RAN no longer has a sea-based fixed-wing ASW capability to provide an outer layer which might be 100 n miles or more ahead/away from a TF, the middle layer can still be provided for using some escorting surface vessels and embarked naval helicopters. However, if it were to come to using an Arafura-class vessel in that middle layer, problems could quickly emerge as the class cannot support and embarked naval helicopter. Further, elements of that middle layer could easily find itself outside of any protective area air defence umbrella which a Hobart-class DDG would most likely be providing for strategically important vessels like the LHD and/or AOR which a TF would be based around in the inner most layer. If even the OPV's were to be fitted with SeaRAM, they would still need to operate within the cover of a major warship's air defence umbrella based around at least ESSM. This in turn would mean keeping modified OPV's to within 50 km and likely significantly less distance from a major warship. This limits the ability of an OPV to act as a picket, either ASW or radar, because they would still require a degree of escort if operating in a threatened or hostile environment.

Now yes, all of the issues I have raised above could indeed be addressed, should Australia be willing to take the time and spend the treasure required to make an OPV into a proper combatant. From a practical standpoint, absent the outbreak of war requiring Australia to refit whatever is available as best can be accomplished, the time and treasure required to make remake an OPV could almost certainly be better spent elsewhere.

Now, if the Arafura-class had been designed and built from the start with the dreaded FFBNW, the matter would be a little different, but AFAIK that was not done or ever even really considered.

 

[MARKMILES77]

For anyone interested, Mark Schwikert has an article relevant to the "upgunning the OPVs" debate in Navy Magazine.
He is Federal Vice-President of the Navy League, former Editor of "The Navy" Magazine and formerly Director Joint Force Intergration for the Australian Department of Defence. His article is titled "WE'LL HAVE GO WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT."
To superficially summarize:
Conflict with China is becoming markedly more likely.
There is little time to react.
Only weapon systems in service or already entering service will likely be of any use.

The short time frame from when China is expecting to have its military modernisation complete leaves Australia with a reduced ability to react in order to maintain its overmatch defence policy. Lead times for nearly all new equipment, particularly ships and submarines, mean they will not be ready in time.

One of the only options Navy has is upgrading the Arafuras:

Given we are building 12 Arafuras now, this potentially makes them the best platform to get more naval power to the sea through arming and modular application techniques.

As part of a combined or joint force package upgraded Arafuras could provide a force multiplier effect to larger ships and task groups...

Anyway if you are interested here is a link;

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Navy-Sampler.pdf

 

[Depot Dog]

Thinking in the relms of possibilities. If the government approve a Naval request to have more combat ships.
From what I have read Arafura isn't ideal and a new corvette class would take years.
Why not increase the production tempo and number of the type 26. The type 26 is configurable. The downside is it is heavier than a Corvette and more crews. My point in these times of strategic uncertainty it could be a quick option.
Regards
DD

 

[MickB]

As I understand the process, the kick off time for a programme which would consider and provide a replacement for a major RAN fleet unit should likely be around the same time as the MLU is being done,

Part of my understanding of the ship building program is that there would be no MLU, (which can cost 2/3 the price of a new vessel),
Rather that the vessel would be sold on and replaced with a new build.
Either an incremental batch improvement of the in service design or a whole new type if deemed needed.
Ships would now serve for 18 to 20 years not 30.
Thus using the MLU to trigger the start of the replacement cycle is no longer valid.

Your example talked of 14 years to complete a major project, if this holds true then a vessel ordered now will commission when Hobart has been in service for 18 years and due for retirement. Delaying for several years will mean the Hobart must remain in service and force an expensive MLU which will deliver a vessel less capable than a new build at close to the same cost.

Ready to be corrected if wrong.

 

[MARKMILES77]

Thinking in the relms of possibilities. If the government approve a Naval request to have more combat ships.
From what I have read Arafura isn't ideal and a new corvette class would take years.
Why not increase the production tempo and number of the type 26. The type 26 is configurable. The downside is it is heavier than a Corvette and more crews. My point in these times of strategic uncertainty it could be a quick option.
Regards
DD

Wont be ready in time. Need options available before 2030 not after. First Hunter class is realistically a Decade away.

 

[Todjaeger]

Thinking in the relms of possibilities. If the government approve a Naval request to have more combat ships.
From what I have read Arafura isn't ideal and a new corvette class would take years.
Why not increase the production tempo and number of the type 26. The type 26 is configurable. The downside is it is heavier than a Corvette and more crews. My point in these times of strategic uncertainty it could be a quick option.
Regards
DD

The tempo for the Hunter-class could, possibly, be accelerated and it is possible that the order book could be increased and/or sub-class variants beyond what changes might occur between batches could possibly be done. However, one of the problems with trying to increase the Hunter-class build tempo is that AFAIK the lead ship has not yet been laid down as final design details are I believe still being worked out and the lead ship should be laid down next year, with entry into RAN service towards the end of this decade. If people truly believe that the balloon is going to go up between major powers in the Asia-Pacific region within the next five years or so, I unfortunately do not really think much could be changed to RAN forces which would make any difference or provide any real improvement beyond what is already planned. Now if the timeframe were instead a decade out, more could possibly be done, but I would be hesitant about expecting too much. After all, if some of the design work were started today, it would likely take a couple of years before the changes could be implemented in the first vessels to either be modified or built to the new designs, with these first vessels likely taking many months if not a few years before they are completed.