Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Going Boeing]

What dictates this very large size?

I believe that the hull diameter is dictated by the PWR-3 reactor and associated systems.

Also, as a lot of systems and new technology has been developed for the Dreadnought class, it saves a lot of money (&design time) to use as much of this in the SSN-AUKUS and thus, it requires a large hull. As has often been stated on this thread, air is free & steel is cheap (maybe the steel used in modern submarines is not so cheap). The downside of having such a large hull is less manoeuvrability in shallow/confined waterways.

 

[Stampede]

I believe that the hull diameter is dictated by the PWR-3 reactor and associated systems.

Also, as a lot of systems and new technology has been developed for the Dreadnought class, it saves a lot of money (&design time) to use as much of this in the SSN-AUKUS and thus, it requires a large hull. As has often been stated on this thread, air is free & steel is cheap (maybe the steel used in modern submarines is not so cheap). The downside of having such a large hull is less manoeuvrability in shallow/confined waterways.

Don’t disagree re fitting big things in a given space.
It’s certainly big and it does beg the question re shallow and confined waterways but I guess the RAN are comfortable with the size and will make it work.

let’s see how it progresses

cheers S

 

[Sandson41]

Lot's of weird things with vessel numbers over the years. Not using 40 with the Perth DDG's, not using 40 again for the Hobart DDG's to keep Hobart and Brisbane the same as previous, but making Sydney 42 when it could have been 40, but that wouldn't have worked with the originally envisioned commissioning date of DDG Sydney and retirement of FFG Sydney, but would have worked out after the schedule slip. Having LHD Canberra and Adelaide numbers ass about to keep them same as previous.

I hadn't noticed the messing around with Canberra and Adelaide. Thanks for pointing that out.

Apparently, the issue of number 40 has been discussed before.
It appears the issue is the hull numbers we agreed with the RN to use. Maybe in the 1940s? The idea was to avoid any two ships (at least of the same type) in the Commonwealth having the same pennant number. Number 40 was to be HMS Decoy. That ship was cancelled, but by then number 40 was allocated to the RN.

Why not DDG 40? - NavWeaps Forums
Australian Guided Missile Destroyer (DDG) Side Numbers World Naval Ships Forums Archive
(the post from Spoz in the second list suggests we have number 37, which was HMAS Tobruk (Battle class). I note that number is now on a Type 45 DDG in RN service (Duncan) so guess the allocated numbers have long since been un-allocated)

Regarding the AWD, maybe 38 was taken up by another ally (and 40?) after the DDG were decommissioned, but 39 and 41 were not.

I did notice one ship in the RAN with a similar number - not 40 but 04. That was HMAS Voyager (D04).
Voyager was sunk with heavy loss of life on 10 February 1964. Brisbane was launched in 1966.
Could the numbers be similar enough to have made people uncomfortable? Barely two years later? Just a thought.

An amusing aside - there WAS briefly a sort-of-DDG in sort-of-RAN service with the number 40. USS Goldsborough (DDG-20) was decommissioned and towed to Sydney for spare parts. While there someone painted '40' on her side, to fill the gap.
Final Disposition | USS Goldsborough

 

[Reptilia]

This one is going to be very interesting to see how it gets unpicked.

The only way that Austal does not get the GPF program lead is if it totally stuffs up the LCH and LCM programs. Despite the current design issues with Birdon (and I agree with Reptilia above, this is on Birdon) there are no signs of that yet. The Government have been really direct on this. There are no chances of a HMI/Civmec tie up.

MHI are however not going to accept a commercial arrangement with Austal or the Government if Hanwa have access to their commercially sensitive information including ship designs. No company would ever do this with a direct competitor.

I don't think Hanwa are interested in the Austal Australian assets at all. They still want the US assets to merge them with their Philly shipyard. Note Austal USA already has certification to participate in the SSN program (which is not easy to obtain) and has a large Coastguard/Defence order book that could easily support two yards.

I would not be surprised if this gets resolved by allowing Hanwa to increase their stake above 20%, and then enabling the Government to purchase the Australian assets of Austal (of which they recently obtained a right to do so).

This gets combined with either buying or leasing the Civmec facility by the Government, and then subcontracting a labour workforce from Civmec for construction.

My understanding is that we will find out early next year.

Austal producing Capes, LCM, LCH and Unmanned vessels with an additional larger shed for the latter 2 projects and civmec focusing on Mogami makes too much sense.

Austal > Capes and LCM produced at current Henderson location combining both the Henderson and naval base workforce.
Austal > New or expansion of existing sheds close by for LCH and unmanned vessels.
Civmec > Site as is, the only facility big enough for 142mx17m Upgraded Mogami.

 

[Reptilia]

More details on both the Austal Vantage 25 and 55 optionally crewed vessels.

Via Austal Linkedin page

#2c42 #austal #imc2025 #indopac2025 #vantage #optionallycrewed #surfacevessels #maritimeautonomy #aros | Austal

Austal Australia's Fergus Hudson presented "Uncrewed Surface Vessels: Enabling Scalable Capability under Real-World Constraints" at the IMC Conference, Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition 2025 today; promoting the new VANTAGE class of optionally-crewed surface vessels that include...

www.linkedin.com

 

[spoz]

We exchanged 37 for 42. RN wanted 37 to fit in the T45 sequence, we wanted to use 39 & 41 and then needed a number for Sydney; logically in the same general area (the next number we “owned” was 59). 37 was no good to us as before Hobart. It hadn’t been used for 40 years while the Brits hadn’t used 42 since the war. As to why various numbers were allocated to which nations in the first place, for Commonwealth countries, I think it is related to numerals in use at the time (c 1949) but have no proof of that. Non Commonwealth countries got block allocations, starting above 200 from memory. The same is true for flag superiors C (cruisers), R (carriers), F (frigates), L (amphibious ships), M (mine countermeasures), N (minelayers), A (auxiliaries) and S (submarines) although the block allocations were not the same for all letters.

 

[Sandson41]

We exchanged 37 for 42. RN wanted 37 to fit in the T45 sequence, we wanted to use 39 & 41 and then needed a number for Sydney; logically in the same general area (the next number we “owned” was 59). 37 was no good to us as before Hobart. It hadn’t been used for 40 years while the Brits hadn’t used 42 since the war. As to why various numbers were allocated to which nations in the first place, for Commonwealth countries, I think it is related to numerals in use at the time (c 1949) but have no proof of that. Non Commonwealth countries got block allocations, starting above 200 from memory. The same is true for flag superiors C (cruisers), R (carriers), F (frigates), L (amphibious ships), M (mine countermeasures), N (minelayers), A (auxiliaries) and S (submarines) although the block allocations were not the same for all letters.

Thanks for this information! It certainly explains a few things.


On another note, this vid just popped up on Youtube, for those interested in the potential of the Arafura class. Looks like Civmec had the same ideas.
I still suspect we'd rather keep them as patrol vessels, but this vid does show some options.

 

[Reptilia]

Thanks for this information! It certainly explains a few things.


On another note, this vid just popped up on Youtube, for those interested in the potential of the Arafura class. Looks like Civmec had the same ideas.
I still suspect we'd rather keep them as patrol vessels, but this vid does show some options.

some good additions to the opvs, some not so good.

good
-57mm, a no brainer
-test bed for other systems is a good idea.

bad
-nsm position is silly if you have containers or uavs on the deck, just put the nsm launcher in a container.
-budget Captas also not great, many other unmanned vessels could do the job.

Hopefully they get the Mogami build. As stated, facility fits 4 frigate sized ships at once for consolidation, fit out or sustainment.

Also…
OPV 2 in service early 2026.
OPV 3 mid/late 2026.