Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

Status
Not open for further replies.

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Sorry @Redlands18 it is not dead, yet...
I have been reading with interest the posts on upgrading the Ararfura OPV. I think anything beyond OCV is just fantasy.



His article is a modest upgrade deriving force multiplier results. He is proposing containerised missile capability. He talks about utilising third party sensors and using the missile sensors for targeting. This negates the need for such sensors and radars to be fitted to the OPV.

Straight away the navy doubles the missile capable platforms. This gives the navy leathality and takes some pressure off the 11 surface combatants. Yes there is coin to spend. Training, personal and equipment. It is alot less than some of the proposal idea floated in this forum.

This idea was floated in the 2009 defence white paper. 9.20 states the capabilities of the OCV. It talks of containerising mine, hydrographic and oceanographic capabilities. To me this concept is possible still in the minds of defence planners.

With an uncertain future, modest ideas like this make sense.

Regards
DD
I honestly would disagree that adding containerized AShM makes any real sense, even if is or would be possible.

One needs to ask, "What could an Arafura-class OPV armed with AShM add to a fight, and what else would it require to do so?"

Based off the armament and placement aboard the similar Darussalam-class OPV in service with the Royal Brunei Navy, it might be possible to fit two pairs or perhaps two quad AShM launchers between the funnel and the bridge. Here is a reality check though. If an Arafura-class OPV is close enough to fire upon another vessel with AShM (even if the targeting data is sourced from an offboard sensor or platform), then the targeted vessel could very well be close enough to also fire AShM at the Arafura-class OPV. Given the rest of the current weapons package intended for the OPV's, they would have no defences should hostile platforms opt to engage one of the OPV's. Essentially, the RAN could get up to eight additional AShM to launch at hostile forces, but would have to put at risk a 1,640 tonne vessel and her 40+ crew, who would be dependent on other RAN vessels for protection due to a complete lack of self-defence systems. Now imagine if the threat forces were instead aerial threats armed with AShM, in such a circumstance all one of the OPV's would be, is just another target for them to engage and for RAN escorts to have to defend.

If the RAN were to start upgrading the armaments aboard vessels, I personally would rather they start by adding or increasing the self-defence capabilities or RAN vessels (not including subs) before trying to add in some sort of strike capability.

Also, given how often lately it has been mentioned, yes, there are quite a range of possible things which could be installed/upgraded aboard the Arafura-class OPV's, and I would imagine that if the RAN really, really, really wanted to, a 127 mm gun could be installed. What people need to remember and keep in mind, which is something that many keep seeming to forget, is just what would be required to make the needed or desired changes and upgrades. Once that is known, then the question of whether it would be worthwhile has a better chance of getting answered. Given that the design of the class was and is intended for service as an OPV, as opposed to being designed as a warship intended for frontline combat like a corvette, frigate or destroyer would be, even if missiles and more guns were installed, the resulting vessel is not going to be quite as effective as a purpose designed and built combatant.
 
Last edited:

hauritz

Well-Known Member
My final say on arming OPVs.

They would add almost zero capability in case of war. However in grey zone operations they could be threatening. Imagine an OPV fitted with AShMs sitting a few thousand metres off the bow of a Chinese warship in disputed waters. All of a sudden that OPV is a genuine deterrent and maybe enough to force a withdrawal and a rethink of the value of future incursions.

Not all wars are hot.

@hauritz Three days in the dog box for continuation of fantasy discussion. Three days of being unable to reply on this thread.

A note to all posters, others wanted to lock the thread for a while. If these reply bans don't work we will consider locking the thread for an indeterminate period of time punishing everyone because of the folly of a small minority. Moderators are growing tired of the few causing complaints from DEFPROS and others over their posts.

Ngatimozart
 
Last edited by a moderator:

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
My final say on arming OPVs.

They would add almost zero capability in case of war. However in grey zone operations they could be threatening. Imagine an OPV fitted with AShMs sitting a few thousand metres off the bow of a Chinese warship in disputed waters. All of a sudden that OPV is a genuine deterrent and maybe enough to force a withdrawal and a rethink of the value of future incursions.

Not all wars are hot.
Any ship sitting a few thousand metres off the bow of a Chinese warship and expected to deter with AShM is in a hot war situation. All the warship has to do is move away (they are faster) and fire first (because the OPV cannot defend itself ... unless you fit more gear).

This discussion has reached its use by date unless a project is commenced to increase the capability of these ships.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
Hopefully now the RAN Thread will get back to normal, an even keel (pun intended) so to speak.

But I do have an observation to make regarding the Arafura class and the parent ship design.

Some here believe that a set of AShM can simply be fitted to Arafura in the same position as the parent ship design, I don’t think it is as simple as it appears:


The above link shows a large number of images/photos of both the parent design and the model of Arafura.

It’s clear to see that the Arafura design has been heavily modified in the mid ship region, eg, where the Exocet missiles are located on the parent design.

The parent design has one small RHIB located low down on the port side (in line with the funnel) and there is a small boat crane facing to the stern directly above the RHIB. There is no RHIB on the starboard side

As for Arafura, there was two significantly larger RHIBs located much higher up on both port and starboard, there are also two significantly larger boat cranes facing forward.

The deck area between the back of the bridge and funnel appears narrower on the Arafura model too.

Assuming the Arafura model is accurate, it would appear the modifications, from the parent design, would interfere with fitting of a pair of twin AShM, it would appear the two RHIBs would be at risk of being BBQ’d by the rocket exhaust during missile launch too.

So even if, and I mean ‘if’, the Government was to ever consider fitment of AShM, I think it won’t be as simple and black and white as is suggested by some.

Cheers,
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Hopefully now the RAN Thread will get back to normal, an even keel (pun intended) so to speak.

But I do have an observation to make regarding the Arafura class and the parent ship design.

Some here believe that a set of AShM can simply be fitted to Arafura in the same position as the parent ship design, I don’t think it is as simple as it appears:


The above link shows a large number of images/photos of both the parent design and the model of Arafura.

It’s clear to see that the Arafura design has been heavily modified in the mid ship region, eg, where the Exocet missiles are located on the parent design.

The parent design has one small RHIB located low down on the port side (in line with the funnel) and there is a small boat crane facing to the stern directly above the RHIB. There is no RHIB on the starboard side

As for Arafura, there was two significantly larger RHIBs located much higher up on both port and starboard, there are also two significantly larger boat cranes facing forward.

The deck area between the back of the bridge and funnel appears narrower on the Arafura model too.

Assuming the Arafura model is accurate, it would appear the modifications, from the parent design, would interfere with fitting of a pair of twin AShM, it would appear the two RHIBs would be at risk of being BBQ’d by the rocket exhaust during missile launch too.

So even if, and I mean ‘if’, the Government was to ever consider fitment of AShM, I think it won’t be as simple and black and white as is suggested by some.

Cheers,
No doubt the two slewing davits and associated large 8.5 m RHIB's will add some significant top weight to the vessel.
The BBQ factor does beg consideration!

It appears that the Arafura Class will be the base for the future generation of survey and MCM vessels.
Of interest will be how or if the MCM variant is modified.
There is a lot of new kit coming into service for the MCM role.
Of particular interest is the large MCM support boat. ( manned and unmanned )
At 11.58 m in length, how will this be accommodated in or on the existing design.
I doubt it will fit in the existing stern ramp and accommodation space.
Does this suggest some major alteration to the flight deck area.

With this project brought forward I'd guess design work is well on the way.
Hopefully some more information comes to light for this project and an updated time frame is given for the build schedule.
The question is, will WA get all the work, or will SA get some of the gig as well?

Regards S
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Has there been any update on the JSS?

What is the status of this project - is it still just a concept?

Thanks in advance,

Massive
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Has there been any update on the JSS?

What is the status of this project - is it still just a concept?

Thanks in advance,

Massive
JSS? You mean the Joint Support Ship? AFAIK that is a RCN project, not a RAN one. IIRC the RAN has mentioned possibly ordering a vessel to replace Choules towards the end of the decade, with the replacement vessel potentially being another sealift vessel of some sort, or an AOR of some type, or possibly a design that has elements of both like a JSS. Other than that, I have not heard anything,
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
JSS is a term which has been used in Australia as well, but it doesn't necessarily mean the same as the Canucks mean by that term.

As I understand it the project is in the process of being stood up, I don't even know if it has a number yet. They are nowhere near gate 0 at present so the requirements will still be in a very rubbery state. The ISD of the first ship is not until some time around 2035 I think; Choules will be 30 then so that is likely to be her LOT. Maybe a few years before then for the ISD so there's no capability gap; but that is still some 14 years away so I wouldn't expect much more info for a couple of years (and will be immediately proven wrong of course)
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
JSS is a term which has been used in Australia as well, but it doesn't necessarily mean the same as the Canucks mean by that term.

As I understand it the project is in the process of being stood up, I don't even know if it has a number yet. They are nowhere near gate 0 at present so the requirements will still be in a very rubbery state. The ISD of the first ship is not until some time around 2035 I think; Choules will be 30 then so that is likely to be her LOT. Maybe a few years before then for the ISD so there's no capability gap; but that is still some 14 years away so I wouldn't expect much more info for a couple of years (and will be immediately proven wrong of course)
One of the things I went looking for was to see if there had been a project number assigned. If there has been, it did not make it onto the list of SEA projects on the defence site. OTOH if the project is just starting to get stood up, it might not be far enough along to have anything to show.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was thinking of this "upcoming need":


Do people think 2 ships might be ordered?

Regards,

Massive
Why are you asking this question when the requirements, if any, haven't even been published yet? Let's wait and see what they are before launching into intricate details etc. Best we not get to far ahead of ourselves.
 

alexsa

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
One of the things I went looking for was to see if there had been a project number assigned. If there has been, it did not make it onto the list of SEA projects on the defence site. OTOH if the project is just starting to get stood up, it might not be far enough along to have anything to show.
I may be looking in the wrong place but the current DoD website is pretty rubbish when it come to projects. The FFGUP is still listed but the detail that was in the old website (where every project was listed) seems to have gone.

Defence Projects | Sectors | Department of Defence
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I may be looking in the wrong place but the current DoD website is pretty rubbish when it come to projects. The FFGUP is still listed but the detail that was in the old website (where every project was listed) seems to have gone.

Defence Projects | Sectors | Department of Defence
I read somewhere recently that Minister Dutton is somewhat adverse to being transparent WRT Defence, so it could be the result of that.
 

DDG38

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Not even the official RAN projects page on the DPN reflects any initial project work on the PSS and I haven't heard any scuttlebutt that's it's progressed beyond the initial thought bubble, so until we see something actually in writing (and assigned a project number) can we limit the fantasy fleet wish listing ?
 

Depot Dog

Active Member
I have been reading with interest the posts on upgrading the Ararfura OPV. I think anything beyond OCV is just fantasy.



His article is a modest upgrade deriving force multiplier results. He is proposing containerised missile capability. He talks about utilising third party sensors and using the missile sensors for targeting. This negates the need for such sensors and radars to be fitted to the OPV.

Straight away the navy doubles the missile capable platforms. This gives the navy leathality and takes some pressure off the 11 surface combatants. Yes there is coin to spend. Training, personal and equipment. It is alot less than some of the proposal idea floated in this forum.

This idea was floated in the 2009 defence white paper. 9.20 states the capabilities of the OCV. It talks of containerising mine, hydrographic and oceanographic capabilities. To me this concept is possible still in the minds of defence planners.

With an uncertain future, modest ideas like this make sense.

Regards
DD

@Depot Dog You are in the dog box for posting a fanciful post. You will be unable to post in the RAN Thread for two days. C/ref my notification here.
First of all I would like to appologise to the Moderators, defence pros and members if I caused any offence in my post.

Secondary, I would thank Todjaeger for his thoughtful reply. I took from it my POV was too narrow and other things must be taken into consideration. I also acknowledge I am no naval strategist and probably in most members view me unworthy to offer views. Sorry but I am trying my best

I respect advise given on the post by all members including moderators and pros

I try not to hammer a point to the any degree.

I acknowledge being a member is a priviledge not a right. The moderators have the right to enforce the forum rules according to their own interpertation.

Personally I try and produce posts within the rules. I try to use high quality sources and try to be well thought out (apparently not in some peoples view). The above post because of family constraints took a week to write.

Finally I reject my post was a fantasy. I am a technologist and futureist but I do not go as far as sci fi. I like to be in the here and now. I look at everything as what is doable and practical. The technology was containers with things in them. It has been happening since Adam was a boy. This is not to open the debate again. It just a reply

Is there room in this forum for someone that is a technologist who challenges current doctrine sensibly?

These are my thoughts and rules of how I approach this forum. I have been reading this forum since 2018. I tried to get the culture before I posted.
I suppose I do not get it

I am writing this as a manifest of my approach and respect for this forum. I am willing to listen and if I do transgress send me a message

Regards
DD
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
First of all I would like to appologise to the Moderators, defence pros and members if I caused any offence in my post.

Secondary, I would thank Todjaeger for his thoughtful reply. I took from it my POV was too narrow and other things must be taken into consideration. I also acknowledge I am no naval strategist and probably in most members view me unworthy to offer views. Sorry but I am trying my best

I respect advise given on the post by all members including moderators and pros

I try not to hammer a point to the any degree.

I acknowledge being a member is a priviledge not a right. The moderators have the right to enforce the forum rules according to their own interpertation.

Personally I try and produce posts within the rules. I try to use high quality sources and try to be well thought out (apparently not in some peoples view). The above post because of family constraints took a week to write.

Finally I reject my post was a fantasy. I am a technologist and futureist but I do not go as far as sci fi. I like to be in the here and now. I look at everything as what is doable and practical. The technology was containers with things in them. It has been happening since Adam was a boy. This is not to open the debate again. It just a reply

Is there room in this forum for someone that is a technologist who challenges current doctrine sensibly?

These are my thoughts and rules of how I approach this forum. I have been reading this forum since 2018. I tried to get the culture before I posted.
I suppose I do not get it

Regards
DD
Here is my take, for what that is worth. When I first joined the forum 15 years ago (yikes, has it been that long?!) I tended to read more than I posted, partially because I did not know a whole lot about different defence topics, but also so that I would have a chance to understand how people post in terms of content, ideas, etc.

There is no forum requirement that posters have to be experts in defence matters, all that is really required is that members be interested in defence topics they are posting about, and make a reasonable effort at contributing. While there is no hard and firm definition of what constitutes a "reasonable" effort, I would expect the Mods to take a dim view of someone making a post with blatant errors of fact, or if the post really does not contribute anything by announcing an unsupported argument or opinion, or an irrelevant opinion like, "I like ship XX more, because it looks cooler than ship YY," that sort of thing.

One thing which many members often get caught up in, at least early on, is a platform-centric POV, be it land vehicle, ship, aircraft, etc. IMO this is sort of what you did earlier, when focusing on a possible change to the OPV fitout. By focusing on the platform (the OPV) you did not see where and how the platform would fit into what would be a systems of systems approach, or in other words, how the OPV would contribute overall to a RAN task force.

One of the other things to keep in mind whenever discussing changes/upgrades to a piece of kit, particularly for aircraft and naval vessels, is how any changes impact the overall function and performance of the piece of kit itself. If one looks at the AMCAP upgrades done or underway for the ANZAC-class frigates, they are quite significant, both in terms of the increase in capability, as well the impact the upgrades have on the running of the ships due to increases in displacement, and where the displacement increased, as well as where various bits of kit ended up getting located. IIRC the FFBNW, pre-upgraded RAN ANZAC-class frigates had space & weight set aside for a pair of quad Harpoon AShM launchers somewhere between the funnels and bridge. I cannot recall if it was supposed to be forward of the funnels but aft of the mast, or between the mast and bridge. Due to where things ended up getting placed, when a FFH has Harpoon AShM launchers mounted, they are now angled mounts immediately forward of the bridge, as this was determined to be a better position than where originally planned. If one were to look at adding or changing the configuration of another vessel, especially a vessel that does not have space & weight set aside for certain types of changes, then there are a whole pile of variables which would need to be figured out, with a ripple effect in terms of changes.

For example, if a vessel has a gun in the 'A' position, but it is a small calibre, non-deck penetrating gun (57 mm or smaller) and someone in a position to do so decided that the gun should be increased to a 76 mm/62 cal. that could indeed be done, but there would be quite a bit of work required. The superstructure of the vessel where the 'A' position is located would most likely need to be reinforced, both to support the increased weight of the much larger gun and mounting, but also to withstand the forces which would be exerted when the gun is fired. Compartment space beneath the mounting would need to be changed into a magazine to support the gun in the mounting above. Whatever that compartment space had been intended for previously would need to be reassigned space elsewhere, or else eliminated from the vessel. The overall displacement of the vessel would either increase due to the increased displacement of the gun and reinforcing superstructure, or other parts/kit within the ship would need to be reduced or eliminated if the overall displacement is to be kept the same. Further, the displacement of the gun in the 'A' position would change the amount of topweight of the vessel, which could require mass within the ship to be moved/rearranged in order to have the ship handle the same way. Side note: IIRC the ANZAC-class frigates had concrete ballast added to their hulls, increasing the overall displacement in order to counterbalance the increased topweight from the upgraded mast and radar arrays, this increased displacement then reduced the height of the deck above the waterline.

There is most likely quite a bit more that I have either forgotten about, or more likely am just ignorant of, but the example should give an idea of just how complex changes to a design can be even when they sound simple. Given that complexity, and how long it can take to implement such changes, it becomes very important for decision makers and stake holders to consider carefully whether implementing or attempting to implement proposed changes can be. The RAN is pursuing efforts to enable modular capabilities which can be added if required by particular missions, but at this stage there are many questions on what could be built and fitted to located on RAN designs which are intended to house modular containers.
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group

Stampede

Well-Known Member
I was thinking of this "upcoming need":


Do people think 2 ships might be ordered?

Regards,

Massive
I find this project most interesting, but really there is very little to go with.

The 2020 Force structure Plan has the following.

4.15 To further expand the ADF’s ability to support an increased presence in the region, Government’s plans include: • Design, development and acquisition of two Australian-built multi-role sealift and replenishment vessels to replace HMAS Choules. This will greatly extend Navy’s ability to project and sustain the joint force.

The graph according to my middle aged eyes list the dates for the project as about 2023 to 2034.

This is all we know and as has been suggested, we should not get ahead of our selves!

What we do know is that HMAS Choules was launched in 2005 and if she gets a thirty year life then she will need replacing with a " Something " in the mid 2030's
Planning for that inevitability and ramping up to build HMAS Choules replacement will take time.
So when does this project commence?
If just a one for one replacement, then we are probably not in a hurry at this stage.
If we want to expand the numbers and the second ship of this new class is to replace HMAS Choules, then I'd suggest we would want to get thing moving fairly soon.
I hope this is the case

I think such a vessel is a good fit for a balanced RAN, as are the increase in numbers of such a vessel.

Hopefully a Defence White paper is forth coming to give some clarity, which I suspect will come with whoever forms government after the next federal election.


Regards S
 

John Newman

The Bunker Group
No doubt the two slewing davits and associated large 8.5 m RHIB's will add some significant top weight to the vessel.
The BBQ factor does beg consideration!

It appears that the Arafura Class will be the base for the future generation of survey and MCM vessels.
Of interest will be how or if the MCM variant is modified.
There is a lot of new kit coming into service for the MCM role.
Of particular interest is the large MCM support boat. ( manned and unmanned )
At 11.58 m in length, how will this be accommodated in or on the existing design.
I doubt it will fit in the existing stern ramp and accommodation space.
Does this suggest some major alteration to the flight deck area.

With this project brought forward I'd guess design work is well on the way.
Hopefully some more information comes to light for this project and an updated time frame is given for the build schedule.
The question is, will WA get all the work, or will SA get some of the gig as well?

Regards S
Whilst it has been said by the Government that the planned Mine Warfare and Hydrographic ships will be based on the Arafura class ships, I can well imagine they will look significantly different.

Probably something like this:


I can imagine they will look something like the Naval Group design being built for Belgium and the Netherlands.

The big change will probably be from the funnel back to the stern, a large hangar type structure (mission bay) to house the various USVs and UUVs and a landing pad on top for UAVs.

From what I’ve read, the Naval Group design is just over 80m, 81.4m to be precise, Arafura is approx 80m.

We’ll just have to wait and see, but that’s what I think they may end up looking like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top