Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Todjaeger]

One of the Admirals there stated they found the Arafura design was not compliant with Australian maritime safety standards in relation to fire structural fire protection with work to do to resolve safety issues in the class. WTF! They Didn’t work that out when choosing the ship? How is that possible?

Not a naval architect or anything like that, but TBH I would not really expect a design at the time of selection to be developed for the specific set of maritime and naval safety standards in use by a specific nation. Rather, I would have expected something like that to have been included as a requirement in the contracting, with the standards required to be included and met/exceeded during the detailed design work after the contract had been awarded.

 

[Stampede]

Senate estimates - Defence

7hr 45m - OPV gun discussion.

No gun for ships 3-6 but potential for new gun.

Ouch!

The ships painted menacing grey yet have no weapons!

Most of us on DT have seen the evolution of the OPVs over the last decade plus evolve into what they are today.

A complete mess!

It’s a fair question to ask what are we getting for 4.9 billion dollars.
The outcome is not stellar.

This could of been such a great project/ projects
A class of 12 OPVs with a respectable main gun with a very flexible deck for S100 sized uav’s plus storage and handling equipment for surface and subsurface uncrewed systems
Also a further 8 vessels for combined MCM /
survey work.

A couple of take aways from Navy

Money redirected to other priority’s
Ship safety or lack of
Intended role of vessel changed. Or has it?

So Capes and majors with nothing in the middle ground

Arafura’s if they are to survive will be the mothership for air and sea small unmanned platforms. Really!

RegardsS

 

[Wombat000]

IMO other than niche Defence roles (thinking UUV development, etc), I think Arafuras should probably be best used by Border Force.

I think that being constructed of steel and heavier weight they’d be a better fit for patrolling further afield and any recent trend of argy-bargy/pushy-shovy grey zone tactics.

 

[ADMk2]

IMO other than niche Defence roles (thinking UUV development, etc), I think Arafuras should probably be best used by Border Force.

I think that being constructed of steel and heavier weight they’d be a better fit for patrolling further afield and any recent trend of argy-bargy/pushy-shovy grey zone tactics.

I don’t think we’ll be pushing un-armed, ill-equipped ships anywhere outside territorial waters and perhaps the occasional safe harbour in the South Pacific.

They certainly won’t be going anywhere near “grey” conflict zones.

 

[Reptilia]

still may go with CDIs offer with the 57mm fitted in the future and containerised loitering munitions + uavs + uuvs(speartooth) + usv from the stern.

 

[iambuzzard]

Ouch!

The ships painted menacing grey yet have no weapons!

Most of us on DT have seen the evolution of the OPVs over the last decade plus evolve into what they are today.

A complete mess!

It’s a fair question to ask what are we getting for 4.9 billion dollars.
The outcome is not stellar.

This could of been such a great project/ projects
A class of 12 OPVs with a respectable main gun with a very flexible deck for S100 sized uav’s plus storage and handling equipment for surface and subsurface uncrewed systems
Also a further 8 vessels for combined MCM /
survey work.

A couple of take aways from Navy

Money redirected to other priority’s
Ship safety or lack of
Intended role of vessel changed. Or has it?

So Capes and majors with nothing in the middle ground

Arafura’s if they are to survive will be the mothership for air and sea small unmanned platforms. Really!

RegardsS

To quote a famous actor, "It's a Cast Iron Cluster****!"

 

[spoz]

There are always lots of problems with the first build of a new ship class; and issues found that need correction. AMSA has no jurisdiction over naval vessels and that may mean that this was an issue related to them operating as merchant vessels while on trials. Fire regulations vary because (in general) merchant ships operate with small crews with limited firefighting training while warships, which the Arafuras are, have larger crews who are well trained and practised in firefighting, and other DC matters. It is quite possible that the issue concerned was a technical one which would not be relevant to a warship.

And, because Navy is the flag regulatory authority for Australian military vessels, its rules, not AMSAs, are the ones against which tender offers are considered. Even then, there will be things which look good in drawings but don’t pan out so well when in the actuality of 3d hardware.

 

[Stampede]

I don’t think we’ll be pushing un-armed, ill-equipped ships anywhere outside territorial waters and perhaps the occasional safe harbour in the South Pacific.

They certainly won’t be going anywhere near “grey” conflict zones.

I’d agree with the above.
But this does pose the challenge that our options are limited to our ten majors.

Not many in number and are they realistically the best type of vessel to respond to grey zone and other challenges further off shore.
I’d suggest no.

Short term we will have just six impotent OPVs, the default of which is we are using the majors for passive and robust constabulary roles beyond the scope of the Capes.

We have been here before.
Have we not learnt we need a broad range of options.
The comedy of the RAN brass explaining the allocation of limited finances to priorities beyond arming the OPV with even a 25mm recycled bushmaster is to suggest that defence is so cash strapped that such a budget endeavour cannot be afforded.
It passes no pub test of logic or common sense.

We need to remember that the future fleet of Hunters and Mohami’s are a long way into the future and submarines are just a niche capability irrelevant to many maritime situations.

Cheers S

 

[ADMk2]

I’d agree with the above.
But this does pose the challenge that our options are limited to our ten majors.

Not many in number and are they realistically the best type of vessel to respond to grey zone and other challenges further off shore.
I’d suggest no.

Short term we will have just six impotent OPVs, the default of which is we are using the majors for passive and robust constabulary roles beyond the scope of the Capes.

We have been here before.
Have we not learnt we need a broad range of options.
The comedy of the RAN brass explaining the allocation of limited finances to priorities beyond arming the OPV with even a 25mm recycled bushmaster is to suggest that defence is so cash strapped that such a budget endeavour cannot be afforded.
It passes no pub test of logic or common sense.

We need to remember that the future fleet of Hunters and Mohami’s are a long way into the future and submarines are just a niche capability irrelevant to many maritime situations.

Cheers S

ADF is not so cash strapped though that it can’t afford to pay Leonardo $10m tor a gun we never received (the 40mm Oto Melera) and $345m in compensation of Leurssen for the contract scope reduction when we went from 12x Arafura’s to 6…

Given countless other examples, it seems clear that accountable expenditure of public money is not a high priority for the ADF regardless of what they say to the contrary.

$355m for absolutely nothing in return…

It’s no wonder the Maritime Tactical UAS project got taken off RAN and was given to Army to run…

 

[spoz]

The OPV contract scope reduction was certainly not the Navy’s idea. That’s all down to the Government.

None of the three Services do procurement, That is done for them by other parts of the DoD; all working for the same boss under the same rules. So the RAN was never procuring the Maritime UAVs, that was one part of CASG. And it was not given to Army, it was transferred to a different part of CASG as it then was..

When the Services still did procure things, which was back in the 80s, we got things reasonably right most of the time with a much smaller workforce - but one which was arguably at least much more highly skilled although possibly not so academically qualified. So if you are going to blame something blame the bloated bureaucracy, not the Services.

 

[Reptilia]

Civmec, latest update…

https://civmec.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Civmec-1HFY26-Investor-Presentation.pdf

-NUSHIP Pilbara is now progressing through remaining fit‑out and sea trials ahead of delivery later this year, with construction of the remaining Arafura Class vessels (NUSHIP Gippsland, NUSHIP Illawarra and NUSHIP Carpentaria) continuing at Civmec’s Henderson facility.

-The OPV project continues to be a central focus for CDI with future opportunities including design support and potential ship upgrades.

 

[iambuzzard]

ADF is not so cash strapped though that it can’t afford to pay Leonardo $10m tor a gun we never received (the 40mm Oto Melera) and $345m in compensation of Leurssen for the contract scope reduction when we went from 12x Arafura’s to 6…

Given countless other examples, it seems clear that accountable expenditure of public money is not a high priority for the ADF regardless of what they say to the contrary.

$355m for absolutely nothing in return…

It’s no Don't forwonder the Maritime Tactical UAS project got taken off RAN and was given to Army to run…
Sometimes I worry about the people in Canberra.

.

 

[Takao]

ADF is not so cash strapped though that it can’t afford to pay Leonardo $10m tor a gun we never received (the 40mm Oto Melera) and $345m in compensation of Leurssen for the contract scope reduction when we went from 12x Arafura’s to 6…

Given countless other examples, it seems clear that accountable expenditure of public money is not a high priority for the ADF regardless of what they say to the contrary.

$355m for absolutely nothing in return…

SEA 1180 went through the courts for a bunch of stuff, and I can't find copies of findings to confirm how much is open source. But there were issues with the ship, there were issues with the wider CONOPS and there were different methods of addressing such issues considered. The final result was the (overall) cheapest path for Defence to follow.

For all the 'break things, fail fast' blah (and SEA 1180 was not that, but going extreme in example), we still have to sign contracts, and such contracts usually involve penalty fees for breaking them. There are at least two projects (not SEA 1180) that went/are going through full delivery because the penalty fees would have cost more than just accepting delivery.

It’s no wonder the Maritime Tactical UAS project got taken off RAN and was given to Army to run…

That had nothing to do with either Service; and actually was a change to Force Design that I wish was publicly discussed more - because it theoretically is better but needed some kinks worked out to make it such. A number of projects were combined to (a) reduce overhead, (b) reduce internal competition, and (c) improve integration between the Services. UAS became one of those. It also allowed for more flexibility at the Capability Manager side and, in theory, a faster turn around because Government approval was for the whole project - not just a specific (in this case) UAS platform.

It should mean that for some things we can do better with the rapid into service, learn, update - but there are a few cultural and practical roadblocks to work through.

 

[SammyC]

Government commits multi-billion investment to build Adelaide submarine yard

looks like there is a Government announcement today regarding the Osborne submarine construction yard. Some more information on the construction schedule, with areas 1 and 2 costing about $15b and taking about 10 years to finalise. Area 3, is the nuclear assembly part is another two-five years behind. If I do the maths, it appears area 3 much be worth about $15b itself.

Earlier documents have stated that the intention is for the first Australian AUKUS submarine to commence construction (I assume early steel cutting) before 2030, so the above seems to misalign. I would have thought area 1 at least would be required for this to occur.

 

[ADMk2]

The OPV contract scope reduction was certainly not the Navy’s idea. That’s all down to the Government.

None of the three Services do procurement, That is done for them by other parts of the DoD; all working for the same boss under the same rules. So the RAN was never procuring the Maritime UAVs, that was one part of CASG. And it was not given to Army, it was transferred to a different part of CASG as it then was..

When the Services still did procure things, which was back in the 80s, we got things reasonably right most of the time with a much smaller workforce - but one which was arguably at least much more highly skilled although possibly not so academically qualified. So if you are going to blame something blame the bloated bureaucracy, not the Services.

The capability manager for OPV is who again?

CASG earn their fair share of the blame no doubt about it. But it’s Navy who wanted a large fleet of 1600t grey hulls, less well armed than the 220t Freemantle class…

 

[spoz]

You may remember that Navy also wanted them armed with a 40 mm. And, they still need ships for off shore constabulary tasks where a frigate is totally wasted but a Cape doesn’t have the seakeeping or endurance. However, suspect that sometime in the future we will again see MFUs wasting their time doing that.

 

[Wombat000]

How much weaponry do you really need for Constabulary tasking?
-A weight of fire to persuade a fleeing non-compliant vessel?
-A weight of fire to influence/dissuade a hostile aggressive act, in activities such as boarding?

non-military policing agency (such as Coast Guard or Border Force) is less internationally provocative convention-wise than a grey military asset, hence “Grey Zone” classification.

The moment there are rounds exchanged between grey zone participants, it’s escalated beyond ‘grey zone’ then hasn’t it?
- In that case would an Arafura even be relevant?
‘Rounds exchanged’ is not the same as hosing or barging is it?

So, do constabulary vessels actually need anything bigger than a 25mm?

 

[Reptilia]

Around $30 billion for the new submarine yard seems outrageous, 10 times the size of Osborne South.
Down payment of $3.9 billion + future $5 billion for Area 1, $8 billion for Area 2 and $15 billion for Area 3.

The Osborne South Shipyard expansion for the Hunter class program and future ships was just over $550 million.

 

[ADMk2]

How much weaponry do you really need for Constabulary tasking?
-A weight of fire to persuade a fleeing non-compliant vessel?
-A weight of fire to influence/dissuade a hostile aggressive act, in activities such as boarding?

non-military policing agency (such as Coast Guard or Border Force) is less internationally provocative convention-wise than a grey military asset, hence “Grey Zone” classification.

The moment there are rounds exchanged between grey zone participants, it’s escalated beyond ‘grey zone’ then hasn’t it?
- In that case would an Arafura even be relevant?
‘Rounds exchanged’ is not the same as hosing or barging is it?

So, do constabulary vessels actually need anything bigger than a 25mm?

Self-defence capability is no longer a thing for a naval ship? I know RAN doesn’t “plan” to use these in a combat role. But unfortunately for that sort “plan” it ignores the reality that the other side then has the complete say in these things…

So the planned Constabulary role. This still happens during a war does it not? Or is the “plan” to tie them up at home ports and not man them at all? Are we imagining in this war, the enemy is going to detect an 80m long grey hulled RAN vessel and not engage it? Nope, let that one boys, it’s only for Constabulary duty afterall…

I suspect, for the above absurdity, almost no other navy arms it’s OPV’s as pathetically as we do now and even we didn‘t in years gone by…

 

[ADMk2]

You may remember that Navy also wanted them armed with a 40 mm. And, they still need ships for off shore constabulary tasks where a frigate is totally wasted but a Cape doesn’t have the seakeeping or endurance. However, suspect that sometime in the future we will again see MFUs wasting their time doing that.

I remember Navy “wanted” that capability so much, they left the selection of the vessel’s primary weapon and associated fire control system up to the contractor.

It wasn’t even supplied as GFE…