Government announces larger surface fleet – but timing uncertain

The review is a bit of a mess to me some nice idea but no actual capabiity.
The only real immediate effect was the retiring of HMAS ANZAC and decommissioning of HMAS Arunta, both a mere 4 years after completing their AMCAP upgrades.

But I feel that the Luerrsen cut backs are the real missed opportunity here. The Arafura class are able to be up gunned, quite significantly, and further, the final 6 being built to the C90 standard was an obvious chance for real capability with a low crew as soon as possible.. isn’t that what this review was all about?
But no we had to pick six fantasy unmanned ships from the US delivered sometime.

I had heard that Italy were looking to off load their fine Thaon di Revel-class offshore patrol vessels, as in looking to sell their already made vessels. Some fine capability in those ships is available.
If not then a strategic alliance with Japan I think is essential so the Mogami class for an Immediate direct purchase Government to Government with an announcement in a months time. We need capability now, but these decisions needed to be made a decade ago.

Imaginary, optionally manned ships?
I don’t think they are expecting to be taken seriously any more.

I expected some kind of U.S. buy from the Fleet Review but imaginary ships is a surprise. Then the F35 was only an idea and that turned out well ( insert sarcastic grimace) . On paper the 11 new Combatants ( watch it shrink to 7) looks promising but knowing how CASG and the DoD work I will be surprised if any thing happens anytime soon. As for the Arafura , it was to be expected but the option of building the last Six as C90 instead of investing in non exsistant ships is typically Marles. This has all the Hall marks of another Fiasco

remaining

The announcement is a real mixed bag but overall isn’t too terrible but not what I was hoping for. I have not yet read to Surface Fleet Review and this opinion is just based on the information provided from the press release and accompanying articles.

We finally have a long overdue increase in the number of surface combatants. But only 9 (3 Hobart + 6 Hunters) “Tier 1” surface combatants? I don’t see how we are increasing lethality at all with this. This means only the Hobart’s with the upcoming Aegis upgrades will be capable of intercepting ASBM. I’m glad they are bringing this upgrade forward but as Kym points out this work was to start in 2026 anyway so not much improvement. We should have taken Navantia’s offer for the 3 additional Hobart’s (Spanish build) to dramatically increase our air warfare capabilities by 2030 and we already have the other fundamental inputs to capabilities (training, workforce etc.) set up.

Reducing the number of Hunters was expected but unfortunate. I know I’m probably alone on this but the concerns over the Hunter’s air warfare capabilities aside the forward looking design including a multi-mission bay will prove invaluable for the future of naval warfare. In the end BAESMA really only have themselves to blame however.

The addition of 11 new “Tier 2” surface combatants is probably the only part of this announcement that makes any sense. I’m not sure how the reached the number of 11 ships (perhaps it’s in the review) but this adequately addresses the problem of our navy not having enough mass or presence. I’m very curious though about the designs that made the short list however as completely absent was Babcock’s Arrowhead 140. With a hot production line in Rosyth and Babcock pushing hard for the A140 in New Zealand and group A+NZ purchase should have been considered. Out of the short listed options TKMS’s newest Meko 200 (32 VLS) and Navantia’s Alfa 3000 (16 VLS) seem the best options. Both companies had Australianised versions of these designs already (for the Australian build of 8, not the 3 express MotS) and we have worked with both before, especially Navantia. The Daegu class FFX Batch II or III are great ships but feature extensive South Korean indigenous sensor and weapons technologies that will need to be adapted such as the K-VLS to Mk.41 VLS. Ditto the Mogami class is also good especially if we go with the newer version Japan intends to build (32 VLS) but also comes the challenge of adapting Japanese sensors and weapon systems. Also not sure how any of these ships will deal with the rapidly proliferating ASBM threat.

Finally the worst part of the announcement. The decision to acquire 6 LOSV is a total head scratcher. This a very risky option both in terms of developing the technology but fielding and maintaining it. If these are in fact are intended to be crewed why not simply order more “Tier 1” or “Tier 2” combatants? LOSV absolutely have a part to play in the future of naval warfare as both missile barges and re-supply ships but I think it’s much too early to go down this route and could very easily become an endless money pit.

Thoughts?

“It remains a perpetual mystery why the RAN took a useful ship and turned it into the opposite – and then blamed the shipbuilder.”…Where’s the mystery ? RAN has plenty of form with this kind of bs, did the same with its Seasprite then Taipan helicopters remember ? So Australia’s in imminent danger yet government can afford to waste ANOTHER year on tendering for current general purpose frigates ? Give me 17 (half of them built o/s) over 11 + 6 ridiculously priced Hunter class hoaxes any day (especially when they remain over a decade away). And yeah, insisting that missile barges for the AWD & Hunters be crewed would tend to suggest that the whole ADF recruitment crisis thing hasn’t really sunk in yet…

Whatever happened to the urgency the world is currently in, about a possible WWIII.

Another delaying tactic by the federal Government.

Typical, as the bluster settles, it’s Corvettes for RAN after all, the Meko A-200 EN’s 32 VLS cells appear to make it the only vessel worthy of the ‘Frigate’ tag, with every other boat on the list packing just 16 cells.Wondering about that noise in the background ? it’s China’s non-stop laughter at Australian hubris.

https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-navy/2024/02/15/navy-to-establish-second-surface-drone-unit-this-spring/
…I guess they do exist. LOL hahaha 🙂

Surely the RAN could add another 32 VLS to the Hunter Class to make them more useful, having 64 VLS cells total wouldn’t necessitate the removal of the ASW equipment making them very good surface combatants and better value for money.

Wouldn’t this purposed new fleet require more Supply Class ships and MH-60R helicopters?!?

The biggest worry is that there is always a lot of talk about We will do this or we will do that and it never eventuates into We did.

For tier 2 could Aegis be overkill, would SAAB 9LV and CEA combo get us what we need, this is same as ANZAC class. 1/2 the options are designed to have buyer’s choice of systems (Meko A-200 and ALFA 3000) and have proposed Aust versions. So a quick knock down to these could be possible. (the others would have to offer something pretty exceptional to warrant the delays caused in Auss’zing them. Navantia has Aust arm so it would support already established Aust design office + Navantia offered to build 2 of these in Spain in only 35 months for the Greek frigate program. So if we go Tasman class (alfa 3000) we might get them sooner then we might otherwise think. and remember Navantia, CIVMEC and Austal have already signed up together to build these for navy in Henderson. My only Q’s would be can it operate towed of variable depth sonar and can a sea mine layer function be incorporated too.

Where are the Drones, let’s get the drones, Looks like they’re not here .

Yes, this Govt has always given me the impression of not having any idea, so whatever their told gets up. I think the whole LOSV is a good in theory but pipe dream in reality if it ever makes it, it’ll be 20-40-200% more expensive anyway to quote the movie ‘tell ’em their dreamin’. On the SAAB 9LV the previous govt said that Aegis was to be for ‘Tier1’ and 9LV for everything else. and they were working it up to do everything Aegis could eventually. but can only hope. The Tasman’s won’t need sm2-6 or tomahawk and NSM will give a land attack capability to them, model of it showed 16 NSM. add mine laying and towed sonar and it would make a great little GP warship to do almost anything you need.

Am viewing all this with a degree of scepticism (who can blame me). Seems to me we have had reviews before and they have signalled capability and strategic changes – to my way of thinking it is simply a delaying tactic until it becomes the next Government’s problem.

I hope that there is real progress with this. Logic dictates that Navantia is the choice for General Purpose frigates given our track record with them. They already have an established infrastructure here in Australia and should be able to shorten the design to launch process – particularly given that the ALFA 3000 is a proven design. While we are at it we must look also at procurement of additional support ships (ie perhaps 2 more Supply class).

OPV’s – sadly mis-managed from the start. As you have said Kym – the RAN took a good design and turned it into a shell of what it needed to be.

Still no mention of any mine warfare vessels in all of this? Maybe build the remaining OPV’s as dedicated mine warfare vessels – fit the 57mm gun and at least some NSM or other missile system for protection?

As has been suggested it would be good if the RNZN came onboard for the General Purpose Frigates – could be a good opportunity for them to modernise their fleet?

Biggest elephant in the room remains crewing these new ships. Not sure how or if that can be overcome.

Don’t count your chickens. The Hunters are going from 9 to 6, Arafuras 12 to 6, 12 SS went to 0, 4 Hobarts ended up being 3, well you get the idea. When they say 11 new frigates the actual number will probably be less. Don’t count on a second tranche of Hunters either.

Reality is that the current combat fleet will almost immediately drop to just 9 ships and the first Hunter is still a decade away. We are to believe that a ship that hasn’t even been identified will be selected, go through the contract phase, production phase and then beat the Hunters into service.

It is almost like the Chinese have won the war with the RAN without a single shot fired.

The whole Fleet Review is a Disaster waiting to happen ,this whole Fiasco is ridiculous, someone needs to say “ We got it wrong, we’re scrapping the whole Hunter thing and going with Navantia Alpha 3000 to replace ANZAC,the Alpha 5000 as replacement for Hunter and the Flight III as eventual replacement for Hobart. AUKUS is too far a reach for us at the moment and replace Collins with KSS III” Capability is needed now not 10 or 20 years from now, all these We’re looking at, We’re exploring the option, We’re planning on and all the somewhere in the distant future announcements need to stop and someone do something now….Either that or start learning Chinese…

It is interesting to note that Navantia had a version of the Alfa 3000 being spruiked at the Sea Power conference which already included the Saab 9LV system and the CEA radar. The comments about the Optionally Crewed Vessels from the Defence Minister suggest that only the DDG and Hunter will work with the floating missile silos because they will have Aegis Baseline 9. That suggests to me that the General Purpose Frigates will NOT have Aegis and therefore will have the Saab 9LV system (especially noted it is government policy that all surface combatants have that system). All this together suggests that Navantia would have to be the front runner with the Meko 200 (which is just an modernised ANZAC) as a close runner up.

The Math concerns me though. Others have noted that the fleet will shrink first by 2035 even with buying the first three FP Frigates from overseas. With the ANZAC TransCap program scrapped there is no way those ships will last as long as is needed so I can’t se how the fleet will grow before 2040; and that is assuming the WA and SA shipyards can actually ramp up production to the required 1.5 ships per year that would be needed to meet the timelines suggested. I have severe doubts about that.

And finally, the devil is in the detail as always and more so for these optionally crewed arsenal ships. Why only 32 cells? What is the concept of operations? will they be stacked with Land Attack missiles to leave the mother ships cells free for Air Warfare missiles or will they be SM3 carriers for Ballistic Missile Defence? Having them haul around SM6 and or Maritime Strike seems ridiculous to my mind.

There are a lot of questions that need answering and a price tag of $11.6B seems the most questionable of all.

Surprising what they can squeeze into a hull now. Just found the PDF page for the Tasman ‘corvette’ on Navantia Aust site. I wondered earlier and now know, It can have towed array fitted in the mission bay, they designed for the Thales CAPTAS 2 which is the little brother to the ones we’re building for the Hunters. Second and biggest, good, surprise, for me, is that the VLS is Mk41 ‘strike’ length, 16 cells in total and is included so it can mount Tomohawk cruise missiles for a strike capability. This design keeps sounding better and better. Oh please Canberra, get it right and get it done. If the reality matches the design, just add smart sea mine laying and UUV options to the mission bay choices and it would be just about perfect.

When you sum it up, I think we did quite well from the review and the future plan.
Instead of risking further delays to Hunter by further modifying it, I think Govt have decided to stick with what has been specified and let it get into production. Yes it’s slow, but we have to swallow that and try and not repeat it again. Sooner or later they have to decide on something and move on. They will not exactly be a slouch of a capability, and are definitely a step up from what they’re replacing.
I think the idea to go for a near MOTS GP Frigate was good, and going with an initial off-shore build to ensure a quicker delivery was a wise move. I’d rather wait an extra 2 years to get a Frigate over a Corvette. Where the Corvette idea ever came from I’m not sure. Did Govt ever say anything about a corvette, or was that just an industry rumour or assumption that blew up?
As for the shortlisted baseline examples of suitable models, they’re a good starting point. Note the language use in the announcement was ‘exemplars’ and ‘baseline’. Obviously used to give some room to move to include some minimum requirements such as CEAFAR and 9LV etc., and add extra models to the list should something else suitable appear. I’d see the Mogami as being a strong contender given Japan’s industrial capacity, the number being built, the age of the design, how it already incorporates the Mk41, and has a solid upper mast to support the phased array radar. I note several of the others have various other systems, leading to more baseline modification. It’s size and crewing requirement also make it very efficient given its size, and importantly room to grow.
As for the LOSV, I think that is a good move getting into a program like that now where we have the ability to have a say in capability etc. especially where Austal are one of the companies engaged by the US to further develop options and enabling technologies. They already have their foot in the game with the Armidale test bed. Having a lower cost and more expendable platform, especially with autonomous capability to carry a load of weapons is a more efficient way to implement the distributed lethality model than just using a fleet of traditional combatants. While it will have Aegis to enable cooperative engagement, it will cost a lot less than a regular combatant. Even at a few hundred $ million, you can have several of these platforms spread out over an area for the cost of one regular combatant. I think I’d rather have a Hunter, a Hobart and an LOSV spread over an area rather than just the former 2. Three vessels are harder to take out than 2.
Expand that to the GP frigates as well. The more expensive they are, the less you get. I’d rather have 7-11 GP frigates with 16 VLS cells than 3 or 4 heavier armed ones as you can spread more of them out on different areas to do different roles while the opposition has to devote more platforms to hunt them down.
As for the LOSV being a fantasy vessel, test-bed vessels already exist and have been in use for a number of years, with one recently test firing missiles in the US.
If Ghost Bat had been announced before a prototype had been built, would people have had the same response?
Despite the history over the last 10-15 years, I’d like to be optimistic. You have to start somewhere.

Why wasn’t a fixed wing air arm considered in the review?Without we lose a lot in surveillance ,fleet defence and offense particularly for the amphibious operations the LHDs are designed for or are we meant to remain within coastal waters so we don’t lose air cover?

My prediction on the Frigate selection is this.
Alpha 3000 not in the contention, it is a paper tiger and should be dropped.

Daegu, this is resource hungry 140 crew. Low endurance 4500nm, only 16VLS. All this needs to change. To change this is too hard to do quickly.

Meko A200: Great range 7200nm, 120 crew, design is mature. 5 years to build and commission. There is space to hold more than 8 SSM as well.

Mogani: Range unknown, 90 crew, 3 years to build and commission. Has facility for UUV and USV. Politically a good choice.

So I believe that it will be between the Meko and the Mogani. Both need more VLS, the Meko can fit 24/32 Mk41 but not sure if the Mogani can, at least 8 cells need to Tactical length.

We are going to see more coordinated saturation attacks on ships in the future, refer to Red Sea/Black Sea. So the frigate solution will need better CIWS(2+).

Need to standardise on the 30mm canon, get rid of the 25mm. This provides compatibility with the Army canons.

Good to see the Arafuras being used for the border security.

The LOSV need to be 64cell VLS units with good CIWS (2+) and the ability to land a SH60. How else do you plan to transfer maintenane pople in the event of a breakdown.

So with the Arafuras cut back to 6 what happens with the MCM/Hydro ship replacements?
Are we going to go back to the market?

You obviously thought my comments were too harsh to publish. Your magazine, your prerogative, but my views on this ramshackle debacle of a government and it’s continuous procrastinating with little or no idea on what to do with defence still stands. The fact the last time Labor was in power, not a single ship was procured for the navy illustrates the true level in which Labor hold defence. The statements by Albanese that the defence of the nation is a governments number one priority would be laughable if not for the fact that Labor’s relationship with defence is simply tragic.
Naval ships with very little offensive capability, contract after contract after contract either being cancelled or reduced whether be the army or navy and not a single additional aircraft for the Air Force. Is it just me or are there other contributors that have come to the conclusion that Australian governments see defence as a bit of a plaything where it really doesn’t matter what you do so long as you appear to be doing something. It is a disgrace wrapped up in a tragedy that unfortunately we will witness in the not too distant future.

I’ll risk a silly question. Given our dodgy fuel supply situation, why don’t we have nuke propulsion in surface ships?