Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[alexsa]

Something which I think requires a bit of clarification. The first Constellation-class FFG is currently scheduled for delivery in 2026, but IOC is not expected until 2030, and FOC until 2032.

Another factor to also look at is the pace that the US can produce and commission warships. If one looks at the build history for USN Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, even the early ships only took between two and three years between being laid down and getting commissioned into service, with some of the newer builds taking up to four years.

Couple the building and engineering capabilities of US naval yards with the fact that the Constellation-class is supposed to be utilizing many systems already in use across the USN, and/or already developed from variants from active systems, then it is little wonder that the US might expect to have a new build vessels in the water so soon. Unfortunately Australia does not have the same level of shipbuilding capacity as the US, and what it does currently have has had to be re-built following a long hiatus in gov't placing orders for the RAN.

The FREMM would have to have gone through the same design process that the T26 is going though now. The base design as currently built does not have the capability being sought and would have to be evolved.

This brings us to the FREMM is it growth potential. The addition 6m of length and 0.8m of beam in the T26 makes quite a difference . With the current RAN weapons and sensor fit being sought it appears doubtful the FREMM hull could have taken it all. It appears that even the T26 (which is a bigger beast) is having to grow a bit.

 

[t68]

Anzacs are already maxed out.

We can look at adding somewhat to the Hobarts (thin margins though)
Which then leaves Collins class, Hunter, Attack and the LHD's, the AOR's. Hunters and attacks are more 2030's objects.

It seems short sighted when the AWD was being done,not getting that fourth ship when the whole point of going Naviatia was more cheaper ships is starting to hurt even though the one extra would have only gave us the same capacity as three baby Burkes

A bit off the wall but.....
Wonder if there is any benefit when the Anzacs pay off putting them on blocks with very basic maintenance in a reserve type fleet with maybe one or two in the water and reactivated if needed, with those whom served beforehand being part time reservist being posted to the ship much like an Army reservist joins a specific unit

 

[MrConservative]

Here is a novel idea.

How about the Australian government lean on the short armed yet deep pocketed NZ government a bit more to actually encourage them to build four Frigates like they once use to operate. A lot cheaper and less complicated. That should be the first port of call to boost surface combatants in the region if their is a shortfall.

 

[Wombat000]

MrConservatives comment above is sadly ‘novel’.
I mentioned some time ago the enigma of NZ in the strategic Australasian archipelago.

no one suggests they’re not independent, but their fate is intrinsically linked to shared SLOC with Australia.
Yet there is zero apparent combined capability framework, despite inevitably operating in concert with each other.
They (NZ) do this because they have been allowed to exist in their perceived bubble.

SCS & our SLOC is a joint strategic imperative, but NZ provide a flag only.
ppl don’t seem to link that the ANZAC maritime body has both a Left AND a Right hand.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It seems short sighted when the AWD was being done, not getting that fourth ship when the whole point of going Naviatia was more cheaper ships is starting to hurt even though the one extra would have only gave us the same capacity as three baby Burkes

IMO 4th AWD was a painful miss, we could have really used that and would have had significant flow on to the rest of the fleet. 4 AWD's for 4 FFG's was the original trade. And we knew the world was going to pot when we made that decision. 4 F105 vs 3 baby burkes IMO is a fair trade, although I wonder where we would would be now if we went baby burke. US is building the constellation class, which is very much like our DDG's in concept. Again procurement costs are not the be all and end all, its operational costs that are the largest for Australia.

IMO Australia didn't do too bad leaning on the Spanish designs and concepts. The LHD and the AOR are IMO quite nice, and the AWD's are at least workable with their own strengths and weaknesses. The Spanish navy is an interesting "alternative" version of the RAN.

So I wonder if we gave up one or two "frigates" we would have a much larger more capable/diverse Patrol fleet, and two extra high end units.
IMO we should probably look at 4 or 5 replacements for the AWD's, with perhaps fewer Hunters. Particularly as our OPV fleet might be reasonable in help in the ASW space. It will be interesting to look back in 2040 and see where we actually are.

But your just shuffling the same deck of cards, just in different ratios. But the tonnage and load out is an interesting comparison.

A bit off the wall but.....
Wonder if there is any benefit when the Anzacs pay off putting them on blocks with very basic maintenance in a reserve type fleet with maybe one or two in the water and reactivated if needed, with those whom served beforehand being part time reservist being posted to the ship much like an Army reservist joins a specific unit

Australia really doesn't have a reserve fleet, however, its possible that we might do that. I don't think anyone would be too upset if our local production jumped ahead of the schedule at some stage and we retired Anzac's early. Even if the first batch of hunters/Attacks live short active duty lives and become training or R&D platforms. With Anzac you have ~30 years worth of crews and some active still. So in a conflict situation, if we kept them in near ready condition that is probably a good idea. Probably more for spares, and what not, but in war anything goes.

Here is a novel idea.
How about the Australian government lean on the short armed yet deep pocketed NZ government a bit more to actually encourage them to build four Frigates like they once use to operate. A lot cheaper and less complicated.

I would imagine there would be much keeness for this from the Aussie side. But I think it would be a big arm twist. I wonder how strongly NZ would repel a gift offer of two frigates? I have a feeling we would literally have to sail them to Auckland and leave them tied up in the harbor with the keys in them, then swing by Christchurch Wellington Behive for some 5" shelling.

 

[ngatimozart]

Defence professionals are continuing to discuss increasing the armament/capability of the OPVs.

Today in The Strategist:

Getting real about the schedule for Australia’s future frigates | The Strategist

The government has announced an 18-month delay to the Royal Australian Navy’s Hunter-class future frigate program. Is this a sign that the project is in serious trouble? Or is it simply an overdue recognition of ...

www.aspistrategist.org.au

Regards,

Massive

Yes the commentators are but when Peter Hellyer said this:

"The first Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel is due to be delivered soon (page 207). The OPV can be enhanced with tailored mixes of anti-ship missiles, towed array sonars, lethal and surveillance drones, and many other capabilities. For less than a tenth of the cost of a Hunter-class frigate, we can get the same surface warfare capability, potentially a decade earlier."​

One really has to wonder what he's been reading. He spends the vast majority of the article saying what's wrong with the Hunter program and one short paragraph on his suggestion for upgunning the Arafura Class with no real details on the how and why, nor does he discuss any negatives. So as a reference to back your case it's a very poor one.

 

[ngatimozart]

@StingrayOZ The place you shell is Wellington, not Christchurch.

 

[spoz]

About 30% of the blocks for the Hobarts we’re built from scratch at Osborne. And, the most time consuming part of building a warship is not the metal bashing, it is the outfitting and systems set to work, almost all of which was done at Osborne. The decision not to proceed with the fourth ship was made by the incoming Labour government in 2007/8 and my feeling at the time was that there was no argument which could have swayed them.

WRT the Hellyer article, I would not class him as an expert in either Naval capability or shipbuilding.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes the commentators are but when Peter Hellyer said this:

"The first Arafura-class offshore patrol vessel is due to be delivered soon (page 207). The OPV can be enhanced with tailored mixes of anti-ship missiles, towed array sonars, lethal and surveillance drones, and many other capabilities. For less than a tenth of the cost of a Hunter-class frigate, we can get the same surface warfare capability, potentially a decade earlier."​

One really has to wonder what he's been reading. He spends the vast majority of the article saying what's wrong with the Hunter program and one short paragraph on his suggestion for upgunning the Arafura Class with no real details on the how and why, nor does he discuss any negatives. So as a reference to back your case it's a very poor one.

A point of correction. the author of that piece was Dr. Marcus Hellyer. He also wrote a 44 page "Special Report" on the OPV for ASPI, which he linked to in referenced ASPI article about the future frigates. I am in the process of going through the OPV article here, so I do not have thoughts to contribute in response at this time about that article. I do not find his claim about getting same surface warfare capability a decade earlier or for a tenth the cost laughable, simply because such a claim is neither accurate or funny.

EDIT: First comment now that I have had a chance to start reading the piece on the potential of the OPV's. One thought which occurred to me is that an editor and/or fact-checker should likely have gone through the article first, as the author has made several references to the anti-ship strike capability of the Brisbane-class destroyer, when I suspect the author actually meant the Hobart-class destroyer. Not a fatal error IMO, but certainly the sort of mistake to cause one to look more carefully for other errors.

 

[StingrayOZ]

@StingrayOZ The place you shell is Wellington, not Christchurch.

Don't know why I said Christchurch, haven't they suffered enough..

One really has to wonder what he's been reading. He spends the vast majority of the article saying what's wrong with the Hunter program and one short paragraph on his suggestion for upgunning the Arafura Class with no real details on the how and why, nor does he discuss any negatives. So as a reference to back your case it's a very poor one.

Cancel the Hunters and order up gunned Arafura's! Problem solved! Take that China! Pew Pew! Certainly don't get how hunter = upgunned OPV. Its certainly no where near as capable, and no where near as flexible or have anything like the range. There will be what 5-6 times the displacement between them.

With the OPV there are options, but they a very limited, and would be essentially auxiliary to any front line Surface combatant.

You could put a package together with some ASW capability. A UUV, perhaps torpedo's or mine laying capability. A towed array of some sort is also possible. But it would be pretty flawed, and would need to operate in addition to an Anzac or a Hobart. Much of this could be modularized and only fitted when required and rotated on and off ships.

You could put a separate package together with some antishipping missiles, probably four harpoon or perhaps 4-6 NSM. But that would be it, and would most likely need cuing from another asset. But these could but unbolted unless needed. I don't know if they would be tactically ultra useful, but they would bring more distributed firing options, more capability, and more credibility to the OPV both locally and across allies. As modules, they could basically just stay in a pool as needed.

You could put on some sort of missile defence variation, but this would a much larger modification and more permanent. Are ~8 or 12 ESSM blk2 or 8-16 CAMM make a huge difference in combat capability? Would a small CEAFAR array be that useful on a OPV type ship? I disagree with mark of ASPI, these are huge changes for a OPV, and would likely impinge somewhat on the regular mission, as well as crewing, operational costs, upgrades, of these ship. But we could, make perhaps a batch of say four with this kind of fit out. These would be more expensive to build, take longer, more expensive to operate, but you do gain another distributed defence capability. The OPV 80 design does not have the size to take both this kind of fit out and the offensive antishipping missiles, so doing this doesn't give you anywhere near frigate capability. I don't know if the OPV is fast enough to keep up with any surface action group, but as an additional defensive escort there might be some value.

So basically you would have some flexibility for the OPV's to do something more than just OPV, if in conjunction with a more capable ship. That could be useful, particularly given how limited the Anzacs are in terms of load out, and provide stronger escort capability. Probably the most useful part of this, is we would have to develop a frame work for operating with such ships, which would probably also cover smaller ships such as those operated by nearby allies. We could provide training and operational knowledge to help those near to us.

Ultimately we are basically stuck with the path we have been in for the last 10 years. While there has been a lot of commentary around it, inevitably the greatest failings have been with our politicians, and their general slowness to make decisions and adhere to the plan. In a great power contest,

Australia is never going to out produce China (or the US) and we won't be able to make bold moves by ourselves.

 

[alexsa]

A point of correction. the author of that piece was Dr. Marcus Hellyer. He also wrote a 44 page "Special Report" on the OPV for ASPI, which he linked to in referenced ASPI article about the future frigates. I am in the process of going through the OPV article here, so I do not have thoughts to contribute in response at this time about that article. I do not find his claim about getting same surface warfare capability a decade earlier or for a tenth the cost laughable, simply because such a claim is neither accurate or funny.

EDIT: First comment now that I have had a chance to start reading the piece on the potential of the OPV's. One thought which occurred to me is that an editor and/or fact-checker should likely have gone through the article first, as the author has made several references to the anti-ship strike capability of the Brisbane-class destroyer, when I suspect the author actually meant the Hobart-class destroyer. Not a fatal error IMO, but certainly the sort of mistake to cause one to look more carefully for other errors.

And never mind that these little vessels have very little growth potential for defensive and offensive systems he is talking about. Added to which in the ASW game they will simply advertised their position even when operating with USVs. While they will have a combat system it is not the same as the Hunters and DDG's and never will be due space, weight and power considerations.

Looking at Mr Hellyer's bio it seems he could have been one of those who gave advice on not getting the DDG. He certainly claims to have been involved in the selection of the Hunter and Attack ......

Marcus Hellyer | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

Marcus is a Senior Analyst focusing on Defence economics and military capability.

Previously he was a senior public servant in the Department of Defence, responsible for ensuring that the government was provided with the best possible advice and recommendations on major capital investments such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. He also developed and administered Defence’s capital investment program.

Marcus has also worked in Australia’s intelligence community as a terrorism analyst.

Before joining the public service, Marcus had a career as an academic historian in the United States.

 

[Todjaeger]

And never mind that these little vessels have very little growth potential for defensive and offensive systems he is talking about. Added to which in the ASW game they will simply advertised their position even when operating with USVs. While they will have a combat system it is not the same as the Hunters and DDG's and never will be due space, weight and power considerations.

Looking at Mr Hellyer's bio it seems he could have been one of those who gave advice on not getting the DDG. He certainly claims to have been involved in the selection of the Hunter and Attack ......

Marcus Hellyer | Australian Strategic Policy Institute | ASPI

Marcus is a Senior Analyst focusing on Defence economics and military capability.

Previously he was a senior public servant in the Department of Defence, responsible for ensuring that the government was provided with the best possible advice and recommendations on major capital investments such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Future Frigate and Future Submarine. He also developed and administered Defence’s capital investment program.

Marcus has also worked in Australia’s intelligence community as a terrorism analyst.

Before joining the public service, Marcus had a career as an academic historian in the United States.

One thing I have wondered about, particularly given how often people suggest using a containerized towed sonar aboard the OPV's, is just how effective/worthwhile would a towed sonar array be, if deployed from a vessel whose hull and machinery was not designed and installed with ASW ops in mind? Would the noise from the OPV possibly (or probably) drown out sub noises a towed array was attempting to 'hear'. Or with a similar outcome, could the OPV add so much background noise that a towed array would get false contacts more frequently than normal?

 

[KiwiRob]

The FREMM would have to have gone through the same design process that the T26 is going though now. The base design as currently built does not have the capability being sought and would have to be evolved.

This brings us to the FREMM is it growth potential. The addition 6m of length and 0.8m of beam in the T26 makes quite a difference . With the current RAN weapons and sensor fit being sought it appears doubtful the FREMM hull could have taken it all. It appears that even the T26 (which is a bigger beast) is having to grow a bit.

The FREMM design has hull lengths ranging from 132m to 151m, beam 19.7m to 20m, draft 7.6m to 8.6m, it could have evolved for ANZAC II

 

[ngatimozart]

The FREMM design has hull lengths ranging from 132m to 151m, beam 19.7m to 20m, draft 7.6m to 8.6m, it could have evolved for ANZAC II

I do like the FREMM design, especially the Italian iteration of it. The French appear to have stood still with it whereas the Italians have been willing to really utilise it and the USN Constellation Class is the latest example of the Italian evolution of the design.

 

[swerve]

The FREMM design has hull lengths ranging from 132m to 151m, beam 19.7m to 20m, draft 7.6m to 8.6m, it could have evolved for ANZAC II

132.5 metres is using a different definition from the others; length between perpendiculars instead of length overall (LOA). French & Italian FREMMs are 142m & 144m LOA, which isn't much difference.

 

[Redlands18]

RAN Hobart class DDGs achieve FOC milestone | ADBR

The Royal Australian Navy’s three Hobart class destroyers have formally achieved their final operational capability (FOC). The three vessels, HMA Ships Hobart, Brisbane, and Sydney achieved the milestone following the…

adbr.com.au

Some good news to get this thread back on track, FOC has been declared for the 3 Hobart Class Destroyers

 

[StingrayOZ]

One thing I have wondered about, particularly given how often people suggest using a containerized towed sonar aboard the OPV's, is just how effective/worthwhile would a towed sonar array be, if deployed from a vessel whose hull and machinery was not designed and installed with ASW ops in mind? Would the noise from the OPV possibly (or probably) drown out sub noises a towed array was attempting to 'hear'. Or with a similar outcome, could the OPV add so much background noise that a towed array would get false contacts more frequently than normal?

Its unlikely to drown out the sub noises completely, particularly for other units, but its likely to be a very weak ASW platform. Machinery is likely to have poor isolation, space and layout is not optimal, hull form is not optimal, systems aren't there to support it. Certainly the noise floor from that kind of platform is going to be very high and its not going to be very sensitive. Its likely to operate well away from main units as not to disturb them.

The MH-60R is a key component in modern ASW work, and the ship is not ideal at supporting that type of helicopter either (no hangar, no Seahawk link, no torpedo's etc). Even with a towed array these won't be going out by themselves and fighting subs. But could be some use as secondary units.
In the search for the MH370, we got to see how chaotic some operations can get. With some navies picking up their own sonar as a beacon. A weak ASW unit is likely to have false positives, or false negatives, which then you have to ask are they contributing much to the overall mission or taking from it?? How good is the equipment, how much training do the crew get in that sort of capability?

I would pour a lot of cold water that some modifications would make these as capable as Hunters (or Anzacs). They won't. However, they can do survey work, they can assist in ASW work. But it would be in addition to frigates, destroyers, P8's, etc.

The lurrsen OPV80 design, isn't bad, but it was selected because it was cheap and cheerful. Its not a corvette or a frigate, and its not even in the class of more capable OPV hulls. Selecting something and then turning it into something its not is a great way to ruin a project.

The RAN's OPV's aren't frigates in OPV disguises, they are OPV's.

If we are talking about acquiring some bolt on bolt off systems, that could be flexibly applied to a variety of platforms, well there is perhaps some value in that. A ExLS 3 cell launcher in a bolt on bolt off configuration with 12 ESSM BlkII?
Able to fit onto LHD, AOR, or perhaps a OPV? Doing some analysis on bolt on 4 x Harpoon launcher or a mount for the mk32 mod 9 torpedo launchers. Your talking about systems that are already in service, already integrated into systems and just mounts for them. Some sort of towed ASW UUV? Probably doable.

But up gunning a platform not designed for it is difficult. Even when designed for it, even large platforms may have difficulty (up gunning the 25,000t LPD Marines, Navy Wrestle With How To Upgun Amphibs - Breaking Defense)

But they are of limited capability, they won't be replacing frigates, and they don't turn them into front line warships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Its unlikely to drown out the sub noises completely, particularly for other units, but its likely to be a very weak ASW platform. Machinery is likely to have poor isolation, space and layout is not optimal, hull form is not optimal, systems aren't there to support it. Certainly the noise floor from that kind of platform is going to be very high and its not going to be very sensitive. Its likely to operate well away from main units as not to disturb them.

The MH-60R is a key component in modern ASW work, and the ship is not ideal at supporting that type of helicopter either (no hangar, no Seahawk link, no torpedo's etc). Even with a towed array these won't be going out by themselves and fighting subs. But could be some use as secondary units.
In the search for the MH370, we got to see how chaotic some operations can get. With some navies picking up their own sonar as a beacon. A weak ASW unit is likely to have false positives, or false negatives, which then you have to ask are they contributing much to the overall mission or taking from it?? How good is the equipment, how much training do the crew get in that sort of capability?

I would pour a lot of cold water that some modifications would make these as capable as Hunters (or Anzacs). They won't. However, they can do survey work, they can assist in ASW work. But it would be in addition to frigates, destroyers, P8's, etc.

The lurrsen OPV80 design, isn't bad, but it was selected because it was cheap and cheerful. Its not a corvette or a frigate, and its not even in the class of more capable OPV hulls. Selecting something and then turning it into something its not is a great way to ruin a project.

The RAN's OPV's aren't frigates in OPV disguises, they are OPV's.

If we are talking about acquiring some bolt on bolt off systems, that could be flexibly applied to a variety of platforms, well there is perhaps some value in that. A ExLS 3 cell launcher in a bolt on bolt off configuration with 12 ESSM BlkII?
Able to fit onto LHD, AOR, or perhaps a OPV? Doing some analysis on bolt on 4 x Harpoon launcher or a mount for the mk32 mod 9 torpedo launchers. Your talking about systems that are already in service, already integrated into systems and just mounts for them. Some sort of towed ASW UUV? Probably doable.

But up gunning a platform not designed for it is difficult. Even when designed for it, even large platforms may have difficulty (up gunning the 25,000t LPD Marines, Navy Wrestle With How To Upgun Amphibs - Breaking Defense)

But they are of limited capability, they won't be replacing frigates, and they don't turn them into front line warships.

My reason for the questions regarding the OPV acoustic signature and relative value even with a containerized towed sonar array has to do with the actual value such a unit would provide a TF. An OPV, without onboard LWT's, or the ability to support a RAN MH-60R Seahawk, is IMO not going to be able to provide much value as an ASW unit, even with a towed sonar array. As already mentioned, the hull-form and machinery were not designed for ASW operations, and are therefore likely to radiate additional noise into an area. A towed sonar array may be able to overcome that, but if a vessel is 'noisy' it would likely make it difficult for other ASW platforms and their sonars. This could possibly be mitigated to a degree by having the OPV somewhat further away from the rest of a TF, acting as a sort of outer sonar and/or radar picket. There is a significant potential for danger and damage or loss of the vessel if the situation has degraded to hostilities though. Having an OPV functioning as an outer picket would expose the OPV to getting targeted and engaged/picked off by hostile platforms which the OPV would have little ability to defend against, without some fairly significant upgrades.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There is a significant potential for danger and damage or loss of the vessel if the situation has degraded to hostilities though. Having an OPV functioning as an outer picket would expose the OPV to getting targeted and engaged/picked off by hostile platforms which the OPV would have little ability to defend against, without some fairly significant upgrades.

Yeh, I think those are real and legitimate concerns. Yes, I don't think even if they were fitted with such equipment, they would ever be realistically deployed and used with that capability.

That being said, they may have some training value, particularly with other international forces who probably operate similar designs around coastal defence. They do also probably complicate enemy planning and execution. Desperate times may call for desperate measures.

Plenty of experiments out there, not sure how useful they are.

Elbit Systems’ Seagull USV Successfully Completes Torpedo Launch Trials

Elbit Systems’ Seagull USV Successfully Completes Torpedo Launch Trials

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[alexsa]

The FREMM design has hull lengths ranging from 132m to 151m, beam 19.7m to 20m, draft 7.6m to 8.6m, it could have evolved for ANZAC II

No argument there but then you have the same situation as the T26, the beast we are building has evolved from the base design as Australia pack more capability into it, The FREMM would have been subject to the same process and would likely have suffered from similar delays. My point is that suggesting the FREMM would have been easier is doubtful.