ADF General discussion thread

[Volkodav]

I would be careful about comparing Moskva to an Aegis American destroyer. I just want to elaborate so people don't think Moskva = modern aegis ship equiv.

I know what you are saying here and you are right, the Moskva has basically no networked systems, mix of ancient soviet systems, and some Russian but still dated systems, poor tactics and conops, several systems appear to be non-working or were not able to be employed because interference with other systems. Its a great example on what happens when you just dump a lot of systems onto an old large platform and don't fund any integration. Russian ships of the later soviet period always played pretty fast and loose with survivability, because if it got hit, it was likely the end of the ship, because you have expended all munitions or they had something that was undefeatable.

The OPV's would make poor platforms for basically any weapon system. We choose the least capable design for the OPV's, and then selected many equipment and modifications to further limit any combat capability. From power generation, engine, speed, Rhib placement, etc. On the spectrum of OPV's they are very much at the very basic end.

Again new new ship would be a 10+ year journey. The RAN Doesn't currently operate any corvettes, and WWII experiences aren't relevant anymore and all of those who operated them aren't just old, they have passed. So we would basically be at the very begining of selection suitable equipment for corvettes, many of the systems (SM-2/SM-6/ESSM, Aegis, MH60R, 5" etc) are in appropriate for a corvette. So unless your corvette is the size of an Anzac frigate you would be having to select, acquire, industry/logistically support, train, munitions, integrate all of those basic things, bearing in mind how smoothly the Arafura's 40mm implementation went.

For the effort to bring a small weapon system online say 57mm gun, you could be bringing a more capable weapon system online. Like 127mm advanced munitions, F-35B or LRASM. I now honestly wonder if we can bring a 40mm gun into service before 2027. Then we need to develop CONOPS, train, maintain, manufacture munitions, have a strategic store of parts, a plan for future upgrades. We could bring a very hollow capability very quickly, but how useful would that be.

We did this with the C27J.. The mini-herc concept. If the idea is the bring capability quicker, we are better off aiming for something either we already operate or almost already operate. It had commonality, and was from an existing supplier and had existing in service customers.

I would urge to consider what we can do with the existing platforms, systems and weapons of the ADF. We can increase their number, or perhaps acquire a weapon for those existing systems.

Money it costs to bring in extra Destroyers or Frigates is not that relevant in the bigger picture, and their capabilities are well known and fit in with existing planning and support. The discussion about crews is frequently bought up, but how are we going to crew a platform that is not in-service with any navy in a way we would configure it. Existing platforms, even new ones, have had people working on them for a decade before they were in-service and approaching a decade of service. Plus there are crews from overseas with two decades of service. Training and simulations are already inplace today and can be expanded, not just established.

Spartan vs herk is a poor example, OPV vs Corvette is more King Air vs MV-22.

Just looking at the RAN spec for a Arafuras there would be 9LV, but being a Corvette probably an absolute minimum of RAM, a 57mm, facilities for a Romeo, irrespective of whether it normally operated a Camcopter, and likely NSM. Sensor suite would be more ANZAC than Arafura.

 

[Morgo]

You are missing the point of a second tier combatant, be it a Corvette, a patrol frigate, a gp frigate, a LCS, or a flexible support ship, i.e. a modern APD (destroyer transport) or something like the Danish Absalons, or proposed RN Type 32, is that it is survivable against low level threats on its own, but more importantly, can contribute complementary combat power to a taskforce consisting of more capable ships.

It is cheap enough to have enough of them to provide and maintain persistent presence where required. Durability, endurance, and survivability are also factors, which rules out PBs, OPVs and even FACs.

They are intended to operate under the umbrella of high end surveillance and strike capabilities, but have the capacity to fight when they have to. PBs and OPVs are so lacking in defensive capability that they are literally no better in terms of combat power than an auxillary or civilian ship taken up from trade and fitted with a couple of Typhoons. You could literally bolt RBS 70 and Javelin to the deck of a bulk carrier and give it more capability than a PB.

A Corvette (with RAM, SeaRAM, ESSM, Mica, Sea Ceptor etc.) can escort auxillary or civilian vessels in a higher threat environment, under the overwatch of high end capabilities, an OPV can't. An OPV would be pressed doing much more than counter piracy work and would provide no additional capability to a taskforce.

It's not even a case of buying more destroyers and using them. Any combatant operating on its own is less capable and less survivable than one operating with others. Even if we had the money to be able to afford thirty destroyers, so we could have fifteen doing fleet work (i.e. working with other ships) and fifteen doing constabulary and patrol work (i.e. working on their own) it just makes no sense as such a platform is too valuable to waste or risk on its own, while a corvette can do the work quite adequately where an OPV and pb couldn't.

The thinking of the three tier navy was tier one was guided missile ships suitable for high end taskforce operations, likely supporting allies. Tiers two and three were for EEZ patrol, and defence, holding choke points open, escort / defence of auxiliary and civilian vessels. Tier three would do local and near regional waters, tier two would provide the same combat power but with greater endurance.

There would have been no PBs, no OPVs, rather small and medium combatants capable of point defence of themselves and ships they were escorting, with anti surface and anti submarine capability provided predominantly by a deployed helicopter. They were to have space and weight preserved to upgrade shipborne weapons and sensors to improve their organic anti surface and ASW capability as the strategic situation evolved.

What we got instead was the planned corvettes were scraped, PBs, that were arguably less durable than the preceding PBs, acquired. The tier two patrol frigates where crammed full of everything that would fit in an attempt to turn them into tier one, major fleet units, while the real tier one was whittled down from nine, to six, to four and finally only three ships.

Think on that, the plan for the 2000s (following the post cold war peace dividend), was a dozen medium endurance, point defence missile armed, helicopter equipped small combatants, eight similarly equipped high endurance medium combatants, and eight to nine high end multi role guided missile frigates and destroyers. We are currently arguing that six corvettes, to support a dozen destroyers and frigates, during the most challenging and dangerous strategic environment since the 1930s, is over kill and unnecessary?

I don’t think a three tier navy in the Australian context is viable. The capabilities you’re describing are somewhere between an ANZAC class and a Constellation class ship. The big limiting factor is range. If you look at the big users of corvettes, they are primarily designed for operations in enclosed (e.g. Baltic, Black and Mediterranean) or semi enclosed (SCS, Indonesian archipelago) seas. The Pacific and Indian oceans are enormous, and the RAN needs to be a blue water navy by default. Range isn’t an optional extra.

There are also significant inefficiencies in terms of construction, maintenance and training by introducing a new class in to service.

I agree with you that the legacy force structure is inadequate. I think the total number of MFUs we should be aiming for (over a 20 to 30 year time horizon) should be the 20 to 30 in the 2000s plan you mention. Getting to a fleet this size is a mammoth task (ideally comprised of a mix of Hunters, Hobarts, and whatever replaces the Hobarts) and I don’t think there is a role for corvettes in the mix. Maybe Constellation class or similar down the track to fill a modernised GP/patrol frigate role. But not corvettes.

I’ve said it many times before on this thread and the RAN one as well - if we want as much capability as soon as possible for the best value for money, we need to put all resources available into upping the Hunter drumbeat.

Moar Hunters!

 

[ddxx]

I don’t think a three tier navy in the Australian context is viable. The capabilities you’re describing are somewhere between an ANZAC class and a Constellation class ship. The big limiting factor is range. If you look at the big users of corvettes, they are primarily designed for operations in enclosed (e.g. Baltic, Black and Mediterranean) or semi enclosed (SCS, Indonesian archipelago) seas. The Pacific and Indian oceans are enormous, and the RAN needs to be a blue water navy by default. Range isn’t an optional extra.

There are also significant inefficiencies in terms of construction, maintenance and training by introducing a new class in to service.

I agree with you that the legacy force structure is inadequate. I think the total number of MFUs we should be aiming for (over a 20 to 30 year time horizon) should be the 20 to 30 in the 2000s plan you mention. Getting to a fleet this size is a mammoth task (ideally comprised of a mix of Hunters, Hobarts, and whatever replaces the Hobarts) and I don’t think there is a role for corvettes in the mix. Maybe Constellation class or similar down the track to fill a modernised GP/patrol frigate role. But not corvettes.

I’ve said it many times before on this thread and the RAN one as well - if we want as much capability as soon as possible for the best value for money, we need to put all resources available into upping the Hunter drumbeat.

Moar Hunters!

I completely agree with you except on one point.

Any navy seeking to bolster the size of their fleet has a mix of large, high end combatants and medium, ‘mid-tier’ combatants in their fleet plan.

That’s because ships like Hunter are big, complex and very expensive.

Regional presence which is persistent, dispersed and credible doesn’t always need the capability of a Hunter or Hobart.

Many of our partners are doing just this in order to bolster the size of their surface fleets: The US with the Constellation Class, the UK with the Type 31 derived from the Arrowhead 140, and Japan with the Mogami Class.

All three are intended to be economical, low crew, capable combatants which can be built quickly and complement their respective large, high-end platforms.

 

[protoplasm]

Spartan vs herk is a poor example, OPV vs Corvette is more King Air vs MV-22.

Just looking at the RAN spec for a Arafuras there would be 9LV, but being a Corvette probably an absolute minimum of RAM, a 57mm, facilities for a Romeo, irrespective of whether it normally operated a Camcopter, and likely NSM. Sensor suite would be more ANZAC than Arafura.

I so regret writing a response to the original post re corvettes!!

The key thing for me is the end of the quote from Volk, Sensor suite would be more ANZAC than Arafura. Any combatant (not patrol vessel) in the RAN needs a Sensor suite akin to an ANZAC. It needs to know that it is under threat before the big bang, and needs to have a means of responding to that threat. For our specific case it also needs to have the range to do this across our SLOC, otherwise it can't be used as a merchant convoy escort, the key role that a RAN non-destroyer should be doing. If this became the ANZAC class as it is now in terms of systems, but with a CIWS added, on a hull with a useful amount of freeboard and margins, this would be a useful asset. It could defend itself from attack, and force other navies to think first before attacking. It would also contribute in useful ways to a larger fleet. If you could pull this off in 4000t great, but the size of the vessel needs to be big enough to accommodate the required systems, and the personnel to operate them, with looooooong endurance.

For me, my kids could be serving in the RAN in the 2028-2038 timeframe. I don't want them to be bouncing around in a corvette that is escorting a convoy to Australia, and watching as the missiles come in, knowing that they could do nothing about it. Or only finding out that a torpedo was after them when the stern and bow part ways.

EDIT: Completely agree ddxx "All three are intended to be economical, lower crew, yet still capable combatants to complement their respective large, high-end platforms". A medium tier vessel should be a complement to a high-end platform, but it needs to be able to defend itself from air, surface and subsurface threats. It doesn't need to be able to overmatch all threats, but have enough to be able to make other navies think first before engaging in kinetic ways with that vessel.

 

[Morgo]

Many of our partners are doing just this in order to bolster the size of their surface fleets: The US with the Constellation Class, the UK with the Type 31 derived from the Arrowhead 140, and Japan with the Mogami Class.

I’m with you - and can see a place for something like that - but they’re definitely not corvettes!!

I wouldn’t mind at all if our fleet composition in 2040 was something like 6 DDGs, 9 FFGs and 12 Type 31s. I think that’s probably suitable for our needs. But even if we started today we wouldn’t get the first of those for the best part of a decade.

 

[Volkodav]

I don’t think a three tier navy in the Australian context is viable. The capabilities you’re describing are somewhere between an ANZAC class and a Constellation class ship. The big limiting factor is range. If you look at the big users of corvettes, they are primarily designed for operations in enclosed (e.g. Baltic, Black and Mediterranean) or semi enclosed (SCS, Indonesian archipelago) seas. The Pacific and Indian oceans are enormous, and the RAN needs to be a blue water navy by default. Range isn’t an optional extra.

There are also significant inefficiencies in terms of construction, maintenance and training by introducing a new class in to service.

I agree with you that the legacy force structure is inadequate. I think the total number of MFUs we should be aiming for (over a 20 to 30 year time horizon) should be the 20 to 30 in the 2000s plan you mention. Getting to a fleet this size is a mammoth task (ideally comprised of a mix of Hunters, Hobarts, and whatever replaces the Hobarts) and I don’t think there is a role for corvettes in the mix. Maybe Constellation class or similar down the track to fill a modernised GP/patrol frigate role. But not corvettes.

I’ve said it many times before on this thread and the RAN one as well - if we want as much capability as soon as possible for the best value for money, we need to put all resources available into upping the Hunter drumbeat.

Moar Hunters!

I think you are wrong, no I know you are wrong. The answer isn't necessarily a corvette, it may be a patrol frigate or a GP frigate or a flexible, multi role combatant with a frigate level armament. We aren't talking about going down to "warships are us" and buying what ever looks cool, we are looking at strategy, needs, requirements, lead times, resourcing, and synergies.

I just don't think many of you get just how complex selecting systems is, let alone acquisitions and sustainment. Every single screwed up project can in all probability be traced to someone "thinking" something, instead of actually verifying it.

The answer is not virtually unarmed OPVs built to commercial standards, nor is it a fleet consisting entirely of very tight and compromised frigates with AEGIS, in particular the Constellations (that some are so enamored with) that are smaller and tighter than the Hunters that are said to be too tight.

The primary difference between the tier 2 ANZACs and the cancelled tier three corvettes was size, range and the 5" gun, which the ANZACs were not originally intended to have. Their combat capability would have been very similar, the differences being mainly range. But guess what, the corvettes were intended as replacements for the Fremantle class PBs, not the Perth Class DDGs, there were to have been a massive improvement in capability, at lower cost than additional ANZACs, that didn't offer much more in term of capability.

The actual replacements were the Armidales, currenlty Capes and evolved Capes, eventually the Arafuras, none of which are anywhere near the capability of the Transfield Corvette, let alone a more contemporary design.

You are totally wrong on your assumptions of imagined inefficiencies in contraction maintenance and training. Corvettes and light frigates have more in common with each other and major combatants than they do with OPVs.

The diesels are basically all RR MTU going forward, the Combat Management System, even on the Hunters is SAAB 9LV. There are new RAN / NSSG SPOs specifically stood up to manage synergies across platforms.
Defence is doing a lot of work streamlining systems.

Not every ship needs AEGIS, CEC would be nice, but AEGIS would be a waste of money and volume on many. 9LV with it's common consoles and system interfaces is more than adequate. If you put AEGIS on everything you are automatically limiting fleet size to how many AEGIS systems can be sourced. You are also driving up the size and cost of your combatants, if it doesn't need AEGIS, you can't get enough AEGIS systems, and you need to extensively modify your ships to fit it, why do you need more than a dozen ships with it?

Also, majors really if ever will operate alone, they complement each other, when the operate with smaller less capable vessels they become an enabler for them, assuming they have systems that can contribute to capability.

You made a comment about me describing something between an ANZAC and a constellation, nope. What I described is an actual warship, irrespective of its size, it's basic naval architecture. If you have dry fire mains that need to be charged before use, if you have PVC pipes instead of cu or cuni, if you don't have shock clearances, resilient mountings, redundant systems etc. you don't have a warship, you have a floating coffin.

 

[Morgo]

I think you are wrong, no I know you are wrong. The answer isn't necessarily a corvette, it may be a patrol frigate or a GP frigate or a flexible, multi role combatant with a frigate level armament.

The answer is not virtually unarmed OPVs built to commercial standards, nor is it a fleet consisting entirely of very tight and compromised frigates with AEGIS, in particular the Constellations (that some are so enamored with) that are smaller and tighter than the Hunters that are said to be too tight.

The primary difference between the tier 2 ANZACs and the cancelled tier three corvettes was size, range and the 5" gun, which the ANZACs were not originally intended to have. Their combat capability would have been very similar, the differences being mainly range. But guess what, the corvettes were intended as replacements for the Fremantle class PBs, not the Perth Class DDGs, there were to have been a massive improvement in capability, at lower cost than additional ANZACs, that didn't offer much more in term of capability.

The actual replacements were the Armidales, currenlty Capes and evolved Capes, eventually the Arafuras, none of which are anywhere near the capability of the Transfield Corvette, let alone a more contemporary design.

You are totally wrong on your assumptions of imagined inefficiencies in contraction maintenance and training. Corvettes and light frigates have more in common with each other and major combatants than they do with OPVs.

The diesels are basically all RR MTU going forward, the Combat Management System, even on the Hunters is SAAB 9LV. There are new RAN / NSSG SPOs specifically stood up to manage synergies across platforms.
Defence is doing a lot of work streamlining systems.

Not every ship needs AEGIS, CEC would be nice, but AEGIS would be a waste of money and volume on many. 9LV with it's common consoles and system interfaces is more than adequate. If you put AEGIS on everything you are automatically limiting fleet size to how many AEGIS systems can be sourced. You are also driving up the size and cost of your combatants, if it doesn't need AEGIS, you can't get enough AEGIS systems, and you need to extensively modify your ships to fit it, why do you need more than a dozen ships with it?

Also, majors really if ever will operate alone, they complement each other, when the operate with smaller less capable vessels they become an enabler for them, assuming they have systems that can contribute to capability.

You made a comment about me describing something between an ANZAC and a constellation, nope. What I described is an actual warship, irrespective of its size, it's basic naval architecture. If you have dry fire mains that need to be charged before use, if you have PVC pipes instead of cu or cuni, if you don't have shock clearances, resilient mountings, redundant systems etc. you don't have a warship, you have a floating coffin.

As I said in my later post I can definitely see a role for a capable tier 2 complement to the top end DDGs / FFGs.

My primary point is that there is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged.

And hence why I think Navantia’s talk of an offer of 6 corvettes (which sparked this conversation) is not helpful. It’s not what we need.

 

[ngatimozart]

First of all define a corvette? Do you define it by it's size, armament, role, or a combination thereof? So that's the first problem. I prefer to define them by their role.

My issue with Corvettes, beyond the obvious range and endurance is two fold:

What "obvious range and endurance" are you talking about?

Firstly, well-equiped modern corvettes often have similar crew requirements to far more capable modern GP Frigate designs. So unless they can get the crew size down to well below modern frigate levels, I just don't see corvettes as a logical use of finite personnel resources.

Secondly, corvettes are compact in nature, and compact designs are inherently not very flexible or able to adapt to change through their life. Corvette designs also generally lack the space to launch and recover UXVs - which should be a key requirement of any mid-tier surface combatant for the RAN.

Says who?

Small combatants are of no use to the RAN. Small patrol vessels, fine, but not combatants that are expected to be able to defend themselves when properly threatened.

"Small combatants are of no use to the RAN." Since when? "Small patrol vessels, fine,". So unarmoured thin skinned OPVs incapable of defending themselves are fine by you. Maybe you should go and say that in person to sailors who crew them.

This and my earlier post is exactly why for a mid-tier combatant we shouldn’t be looking at Corvettes, but rather modern, modular, low crew, GP/multipurpose frigates.

Pray tell me what's the difference in crew numbers between an ASW or air defence frigate and a GP frigate?

Of further benefit, this could very much be in partnership with NZ, coinciding with their planned frigate replacements.

I would be very careful about bringing NZ into this discussion, because the RNZN frigate replacement has been already been delayed by 4 years.

What are these contingencies though? What situations would an OPV be insufficient for, but a Hunter / Hobart would be overkill?

I would argue that OPVs become overmatched once someone starts slinging missiles, and If someone starts slinging missiles I don’t think anyone will be upset about having AEGIS and 48 VLS.

Others have answered your question but to reinforce their points, you can buy far more corvettes to undertake 2nd tier operations than you can DDGs and FFGs. The point of corvettes is that they free up the 1st tier vessels to concentrate on their taskings, whilst the corvettes do the mundane stuff like convoy escort etc.

Sat on the side mostly during the corvette discussion. It has shifted significantly from adding a 57mm gun, a RIM116 and a 4 pack of NSMs to something way bigger. At the time there was criticism of the folks who mentioned this …trying to turn the Arafura in to battleships I think was the refrain.

Yes it was and probably one of mine.

the fastest way for us the get this moving is to keep as much of the original design and bolt on capabilities where possible.

One thing I hope that comes out if this is a hangar for a SH 60. That alone changes the equation on the Arafuras.

The Arafura's couldn't defend themselves from an air attack by a CAC Wirraway, let alone modern day aircraft, missiles, and ships. That's the whole point. You can't weaponize or up armour them either because the core vessel isn't designed or built for armed conflict.

 

[Morgo]

Others have answered your question but to reinforce their points, you can buy far more corvettes to undertake 2nd tier operations than you can DDGs and FFGs. The point of corvettes is that they free up the 1st tier vessels to concentrate on their taskings, whilst the corvettes do the mundane stuff like convoy escort etc.

Good points all Ngati - and I absolutely get that you don’t need something Tier 1 for everything - but presumably most things described as “corvettes” wouldn’t have the range to be effective as convoy escorts? Sydney to Honolulu and Perth to the Gulf of Aden are both a very long way…

Something like the Type 31 would be a very different kettle of fish of course.

 

[ngatimozart]

As I said in my later post I can definitely see a role for a capable tier 2 complement to the top end DDGs / FFGs.

My primary point is that there is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged.

And hence why I think Navantia’s talk of an offer of 6 corvettes (which sparked this conversation) is not helpful. It’s not what we need.

"There is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged."

What's stopping you from designing one? Absolutely nothing. If you design it then you get to set the length, dwt, range, speed, fit out, the lot. There's no reason why you can't base a design on the MEKO 200 hull of the Anzac Class. It has plenty of room and you can fit it with multiple mission bays, including one in the stern. It doesn't require a gas turbine so there's a money saver right away. You don't need the 5 inch gun and can replace that with a 57mm or 76mm gun. Steel is cheap and air is free. It won't require sensors like the ASMD radars etc., nor CEC etc. If needed it can still transfer data via Link 16. You could probably operate it with a base crew of probably 60 with automation. Use something like SH Cube for modular capabilities and you would be doing well.

EDIT: @Morgo I wouldn't touch the RN Type 31 with a barge pole. They've ruined a perfectly good design and turned it into a glorified OPV, well a corvette. I really like the OMT F370 design (Iver Huitfeld Class FFG) which is the basis for the Arrowhead AH140 that Babcock have. The T-31 is an abomination as far as I am concerned.

 

[Morgo]

"There is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged."

What's stopping you from designing one? Absolutely nothing. If you design it then you get to set the length, dwt, range, speed, fit out, the lot. There's no reason why you can't base a design on the MEKO 200 hull of the Anzac Class. It has plenty of room and you can fit it with multiple mission bays, including one in the stern. It doesn't require a gas turbine so there's a money saver right away. You don't need the 5 inch gun and can replace that with a 57mm or 76mm gun. Steel is cheap and air is free. It won't require sensors like the ASMD radars etc., nor CEC etc. If needed it can still transfer data via Link 16. You could probably operate it with a base crew of probably 60 with automation. Use something like SH Cube for modular capabilities and you would be doing well.

The short answer is nothing, other than I have no idea about naval architecture!

Per my other post - I’m having a go at the rumoured Navantia offer of “6 corvettes” to help us plug our immediate needs this decade as an alternative to their offer of additional Hobarts. The Morgo class dreadnoughts will sadly not be ready in this timeline, or likely float either.

 

[ngatimozart]

The short answer is nothing, other than I have no idea about naval architecture!

Per my other post - I’m having a go at the rumoured Navantia offer of “6 corvettes” to help us plug our immediate needs this decade as an alternative to their offer of additional Hobarts. The Morgo class dreadnoughts will sadly not be ready in this timeline, or likely float either.

By you I wasn't meaning you personally, but Australia. The Navantia corvettes are definitely to small for the Indo Pacific. That's why I suggested the Anzac hull.

Morgo Class dreadnaughts - hmmm. The trick is keep the blue wobbly stuff on the outside of the hull.

 

[Morgo]

"There is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged."

What's stopping you from designing one? Absolutely nothing. If you design it then you get to set the length, dwt, range, speed, fit out, the lot. There's no reason why you can't base a design on the MEKO 200 hull of the Anzac Class. It has plenty of room and you can fit it with multiple mission bays, including one in the stern. It doesn't require a gas turbine so there's a money saver right away. You don't need the 5 inch gun and can replace that with a 57mm or 76mm gun. Steel is cheap and air is free. It won't require sensors like the ASMD radars etc., nor CEC etc. If needed it can still transfer data via Link 16. You could probably operate it with a base crew of probably 60 with automation. Use something like SH Cube for modular capabilities and you would be doing well.

EDIT: @Morgo I wouldn't touch the RN Type 31 with a barge pole. They've ruined a perfectly good design and turned it into a glorified OPV, well a corvette. I really like the OMT F370 design (Iver Huitfeld Class FFG) which is the basis for the Arrowhead AH140 that Babcock have. The T-31 is an abomination as far as I am concerned.

Fair enough. What is it that they’ve done to draw your ire? Have they cut back capability significantly to get the seemingly pretty impressive range numbers?

 

[Volkodav]

As I said in my later post I can definitely see a role for a capable tier 2 complement to the top end DDGs / FFGs.

My primary point is that there is no corvette in the world that I know of that would be suitable in that role, mainly because it’s too short legged.

And hence why I think Navantia’s talk of an offer of 6 corvettes (which sparked this conversation) is not helpful. It’s not what we need.

The K130 has the same 4000Nm range as the Arafuras and Capes. For the K130 it's at 15kt, I don't know what it is for the Arafuras.

The corvettes have been mentioned in terms of replacing some Arafuras, not instead of major fleet units. They are not even being spoken of as alternatives to the ANZACs, they are a speculative alternative to later Arafuras to deliver an increase to RAN combat power.

The original discussion was in regards to the government considering getting Civmec and Lurssen to build six K130 type corvettes instead of up arming six of the Arafuras, which was also mentioned by the previous government.

The K130 was the design under consideration because Lurssen is involved in the design and build of them as well as the OPVs. It was also considered suitable as the SAAR 6 with it enhanced combat fitout, is also a derivative of the design.

So in a nutshell:

-Same builder and designer as the Arafura
-Design already adapted for other users requirements, including enhanced air and self defence.
- Design already adapted in some versions to operate SH-60B
- Design more capable and survivable than OPV
- Design has similar range to OPV
- Design has larger crew to than Arafura but likely similar to enhanced armed Arafura.

 

[protoplasm]

"Small combatants are of no use to the RAN." Since when? "Small patrol vessels, fine,". So unarmoured thin skinned OPVs incapable of defending themselves are fine by you. Maybe you should go and say that in person to sailors who crew them.

No ngati, the exact opposite. I am drawing the distinction that patrol vessels are not combatants, and should not be in a position where they are expected to engage in combat. They may end up in combat, but they'd just be targets. If we have vessels for patrol, they are for constabulary duties, HADR, showing the flag, crew and officer training and experience, and presence. I am particularly focussing on the fact that they are unarmoured thin skinned OPVs incapable of defending themselves, and arguing that if we are to add vessels to the RAN they shouldn't be any of those things.

With your suggestion of a hull based on a modern MEKO 200, where do you think it'd end up in terms of size with

• 9LV
• ES-3701 ESM
• 8vls with 32ESSM
• Phalanx 1b or it's replacement
• 76mm
• 2x 25mm Typhoon mounts
• Hull mounted sonar
• Hangar and pad for MH-60R
• 6000nm range

This'd give a reasonable defence against air, surface and subsea threats. I'd hope with modern automation the crew size could be reduced considerably, but I must defer to those with more knowledge as to how far the crew could be slimmed down. My other query is whether any of the above could be taken out, or reduced down without significantly compromising the vessel capability overall, any suggestions? As I indicated in #2404, my kids could end up serving on whatever is decided to be added to the RAN fleet in the next year or so, I don't want them potentially heading into a kinetic situation on a vessel that can't defend itself.

 

[Morgo]

The K130 has the same 4000Nm range as the Arafuras and Capes. For the K130 it's at 15kt, I don't know what it is for the Arafuras.

The corvettes have been mentioned in terms of replacing some Arafuras, not instead of major fleet units. They are not even being spoken of as alternatives to the ANZACs, they are a speculative alternative to later Arafuras to deliver an increase to RAN combat power.

The original discussion was in regards to the government considering getting Civmec and Lurssen to build six K130 type corvettes instead of up arming six of the Arafuras, which was also mentioned by the previous government.

The K130 was the design under consideration because Lurssen is involved in the design and build of them as well as the OPVs. It was also considered suitable as the SAAR 6 with it enhanced combat fitout, is also a derivative of the design.

So in a nutshell:

-Same builder and designer as the Arafura
-Design already adapted for other users requirements, including enhanced air and self defence.
- Design already adapted in some versions to operate SH-60B
- Design more capable and survivable than OPV
- Design has similar range to OPV
- Design has larger crew to than Arafura but likely similar to enhanced armed Arafura.

I did think that was a good idea myself previously (the Sa’ar 6 in particular have a LOT of capability in a small hull), but I’ve now changed my mind because of the range issue.

All they would be good for would be operating in Australian waters, which is perfectly fine for an OPV but no use at all for a full warship unless we go into full turtle / defence-of-Australia mode.

 

[Volkodav]

I did think that was a good idea myself previously (the Sa’ar 6 in particular have a LOT of capability in a small hull), but I’ve now changed my mind because of the range issue.

All they would be good for would be operating in Australian waters, which is perfectly fine for an OPV but no use at all for a full warship unless we go into full turtle / defence-of-Australia mode.

Why is range an issue for corvettes but not for OPVs?

We can not and will not be building everything at the same time. The corvettes are being spoken of as coming in after the first several OPVs and before the Hunters as a fast acquisition.

After the OPVs, Corvettes and proposed MCMVs, there is nothing stopping the government, should the need be identified, from ordering a class of frigates to slot between the AEGIS ships and the corvettes.

 

[Morgo]

Why is range an issue for corvettes but not for OPVs?

We can not and will not be building everything at the same time. The corvettes are being spoken of as coming in after the first several OPVs and before the Hunters as a fast acquisition.

After the OPVs, Corvettes and proposed MCMVs, there is nothing stopping the government, should the need be identified, from ordering a class of frigates to slot between the AEGIS ships and the corvettes.

Because the OPVs can fulfil their role (primarily border and fisheries protection) while not straying too far from the Australian coast. And you don’t need missiles for fisherman and refugees.

I don’t think that the same can be said for something being asked to do convoy escort and other tasks which require going outside our EEZ and hence need much longer range.

EDIT: Sorry I didn’t do your comment justice - a number of proper GP/patrol frigates would be great if they can be squeezed into the shipbuilding plan, but I’d rather see those resources redirected to the Hunter builds if possible.

 

[ngatimozart]

Fair enough. What is it that they’ve done to draw your ire? Have they cut back capability significantly to get the seemingly pretty impressive range numbers?

The Iver Huitfeld Class are a great class of FFG operated by the Royal Danish Navy and the USN rate the Ivers highly. In the RDN they are a AAW FFG with an ASW capability. What really annoys me with the Poms is that the could've used a 3.500 tonne ship for what they have done with the Type 31. It's a cheap and nasty political trick to cover the fact that they're to stingy to build the original 13 Type 26 which are replacing 19 Type 23 frigates. So now you basically have 8 Type 23 FFG replacing 19 Type 23 FFG.

 

[recce.k1]

Good points all Ngati - and I absolutely get that you don’t need something Tier 1 for everything - but presumably most things described as “corvettes” wouldn’t have the range to be effective as convoy escorts? Sydney to Honolulu and Perth to the Gulf of Aden are both a very long way…

If it helps by providing additional context, not all convoy escort duties are long ranged. For example during WW2 a NZ Cruiser would escort merchant vessels across the Tasman Sea to be met by a RAN Cruiser as the vessels approached Australian waters (the NZ Cruiser would then return home or divert to another Australian port if requested to do so etc).

In a modern context, that could be a RAN Corvette greeting approaching allied vessels (not necessarily from just NZ, it could be vessels from the US for example). That then frees up RAN MFU's for long distance escorting or other important taskings.

A Corvette could also be utilised to provide presence patrolling strategic infrastructure such as off-shore oil and gas platforms (again freeing up MFU's for other crucial taskings or forward deployment etc). The advantage of a Corvette over a FAC doing that type of function would be the Corvette could put out to (deep) sea to investigate any vessels of interest and if she carried a Romeo type helo could extend its reach and punch.