Pete Hegseth comes from the Fox media so they are not all bad
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Yes, this is the first time the Government has opened the door on more than 11. The language started off as up to 11, then for the last year or so exactly 11, but now it is perhaps moving into potentially more than 11. Senator Conrroy is very careful with what he says, so I doubt this was a slip of the tongue.
There is still lots of work to do before a final contract with MHI and the Japanese government is completed. I think we might see some other aspects of this materialise over that time. I still think there is the potential for an accelerated and larger overseas build phase.
So?, Rough timeline
Japan
2026 cut steel, 2029 delivery to RAN, 2030 service
2028 cut steel, 2031 delivery to RAN, 2032 service
2030 cut steel, 2033 delivery ton RAN, 2034 service
Australia
2029/2030 cut steel?, 2034/2035 delivery?(Probably around 5 years for the first?) 2035/2036 service?
Follow ons every 1 year(11 by 2042)?, 18months(11 by 2046)?, 2 years(11 by 2050)?
Japan
2026 cut steel, 2029 delivery to RAN, 2030 service
2028 cut steel, 2031 delivery to RAN, 2032 service
2030 cut steel, 2033 delivery ton RAN, 2034 service
Australia
2029/2030 cut steel?, 2034/2035 delivery?(Probably around 5 years for the first?) 2035/2036 service?
Follow ons every 1 year(11 by 2042)?, 18months(11 by 2046)?, 2 years(11 by 2050)?
With the IP of the Mogamis it may be possible for us to design it into a LOCSV. Strip everything possible off them, the crew size is already small, and they have 32 VLS.
To respond to a previous post, I see the modern day Bathurst instead based off the OPVs. Add a towed VDS, some LWTs and a drone(s) that can deploy sonobuoys and a LWT and you’ve quite a nifty little ASW escort/local patrol ship.
To respond to a previous post, I see the modern day Bathurst instead based off the OPVs. Add a towed VDS, some LWTs and a drone(s) that can deploy sonobuoys and a LWT and you’ve quite a nifty little ASW escort/local patrol ship.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Ideally an Arafura derived ASW combatant would have a slight hull stretch to add a hanger for UAS, plus it probably doesn’t have magazine arrangements for LWT at present.
Add SeaRAM and you have a basic self defence capability as well.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No offense, but I certainly hope not. Unless the basic design included warship features for damage control and compartment isolation, AFAIK features not ordinarily found/included in an OPV, then one might end up with a vessel that is able to do some of the combat tasks, but be even more vulnerable to hostile actions and less survivable.
Also for ASW ops specifically, one of the valuable characteristics is a 'quiet' hull, which is one of the issues with the Hunter-class frigate design, doing that right takes time and resources to properly design the hull shape as well as the necessary rafting and machinery isolation. This is not something commonly done to a significant degree for most normal (i.e. non-ASW) warships, never mind OPV's.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Senator Conroy's interview was very informative and my BS detector wasn't needed. He made a lot of sense.
An awful lot of work needs to be done before they start building these ships in Australia. What we really have at the moment is the contract for the first 3 Japanese built vessels. There is mention that the remaining vessels will be built in West Australia but that is it.
To deliver the first Australian built ship by the mid 30s I imagine they would need to commence building it before the end of this decade. Henderson is currently working on the remaining Arafuras and about to commence work on18 LCM, 8 LCH and perhaps several patrol boats. Squeezing in something as complex as the Mogami into that schedule will be quite challenging.
We don't even know what the Australianised version of the Mogami will look like. I am hoping that they just make minimal changes but if they go against all common sense and logic and head down the Hunter path of changing everything it could be the best part of a decade before we are even ready to cut first steel.
As things currently stand we will probably see the surface combat fleet reduced to 3 Hobarts, 3 Mogamis and 1 Hunter by 2035. Perhaps we might still have one or two surviving ANZACs but they would be well and truly on life support by then.
In short I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up ordering at least one more Mogami from Japan.
Last edited:
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
This recent Navy Lookout article indicates that the USN has hit the panic button and needs to supplement its existing warship fleet with uncrewed vessels in a very short timeframe - the RAN may still end up using a US design if they are basic enough that they can be quickly produced in large numbers.
WA WORK
2025-2026 Guardian class x2 > AUSTAL(NAVAL BASE)
2025-2029 Arafura class x4 > CIVMEC DEFENCE(HENDERSON)
2025-2031 Evolved Cape class to ABF x11, (planned) > AUSTAL(HENDERSON)
2026-2032 LCM x18 > AUSTAL DEFENCE(HENDERSON) or (NAVAL BASE after Guardian class?)
2026-2035 LCH x8 > Prime-AUSTAL DEFENCE(HENDERSON) + CIVMEC DEFENCE(HENDERSON)
2029/30 or 31? GPF x8 > Prime-AUSTAL DEFENCE(HENDERSON) + CIVMEC DEFENCE(HENDERSON)
Precinct upgrades 2026-2031 (5 years apparently)
If it goes down like that and they keep the Naval base facility.
Austal at Henderson would have work to 2031, then maybe LOSV or new Patrol boats.
Austal at Naval Base would have work to 2032, then maybe more capable Pacific patrol boats.
Austal/Civmec Defence work into 2040s with GPF.
>2 decades of work
Last edited:
Contract for the first two new FFMs was awarded to MHI in April for 2028 delivery.
If they're true to their word we may get the second one in late 2028 (just in time for the next federal election). Strongly suspect there'll be an option for a fourth one built overseas which could mean we'd have them by 2033 as the JMSDF plan is to have their 12 built by 2032.
A fourth makes sense if we're struggling to Henderson up to speed and would make little difference long term if continuous production means one every 15-18 months (allocating $1bn p.a. is cheap to keep the shipyard busy).
Japan's MHI wins contract to build new replenishment ship and two Upgraded FFM - Naval News
In March, Japan’s ATLA awarded two major contracts to MHI, totaling over 151 billion yen ($1.03 billion), for the construction of a 14,500-tonne replenishment ship and two upgraded Mogami-class “New FFM” (06FFM) frigates for the JMSDF.
www.navalnews.com
Yes we await more details but your proposed schedule options look about right.
HMAS Perth will be 28 years old in 2034 which is the same age ANZAC was decommissioned.
So what will the fleet look like in 2034
Three Hobarts
One. / two Hunters
Three / four Mogami
At best nine ships?
Does this look correct.
Cheers S
Wonder if there will be an option for more Mogami's built in japan if necessary?
I really struggle to see the Australian yard up and running, and keeping the time line, sorry if that sounds negative, but realistically, can they keep up?
Can or would the Hunters pace be increased?
Catching up on old posts so I hope this isn't too off topic but I've heard PAC 3 MSE is in some ways more capable for ABM work than SM-3 which is broadly better at engaging aircraft. On top of this there's been reports that the US is increasingly interested in bringing PAC 3 MSE into wide scale service with the USN launched from Mk41. Considering the significantly faster PAC 3 production rate compared to SM-3 do you think this could be an option for the RAN?
With regards to the selection of Mogami I don't envy the people who will now have to make a ship built with a very different mindset towards DC and navigation gel with RAN procedures. The cramming of several new forms of automation into the Mogami design results in a ship run very differently to any the RAN operates currently. Reports that all damage control and comms are run from the CIC alone raise questions for me and I have doubts they will keep to a complement of 90 in RAN service.
The main thing though is that a decision has been made so now people can get to work addressing those matters.
The main thing though is that a decision has been made so now people can get to work addressing those matters.
Japanese warships certainly have some oddities in them. Granted it has been nearly thirty years since I was last on one of their ships (for a tour while on a port call) and the two things that struck me then was the old style voice pipes fitted on the bridge and of course the obligatory small shrine.
DC is very man power intensive so I also wonder about the crewing levels.
2034 = 7 or 8 ships in service.
3 Hobart - From 2017/2018/2020
3 Mogami - From 2030/2032/2034
1 or 2 Hunter - From 2032 or 34 + 2034 or 36
0 Anzac if 28 years is the cut off. Decommissioned in 2024’/26’/29’/30’/31’/32’/33’/34’
2036 = 9 or 10 ships.
Spain will have F110s coming online from 2028, possibly 2027 -they are well ahead of schedule(3 currently under construction) and it would be a good idea to go after the last Alvaro de Bazan class imo, the F105 (then upgraded close to spec after our current 3.) Navantia/Spain owe us one.
An additional Mogami built in Japan would be a bonus, the fleet would then be 4 Destroyers, 5 GPF and 2 ASW Frigates in a decade.
4 Destroyers, 4 Anzacs and 1 Mogami = 9 ships/end 2030. Fleet might not drop below 9 and would rise to 11 by 2036, quicker than the current planned 9.
Last edited:
Not talking about a top of the line, A grade ships here
I have great hope and confidence for this class, a step back from the customisation that has been added to ships over the years and blown out costs. Hopefully these will be a great success and lead to streamlined and better value procurement for the future.