Containerise the launchers and stick them on the back of an Arafura?
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It could be argued that the Mk 141 quad Harpoon missile launchers already are containerized. Fitting Harpoons to the Arafura-class might just end up making the OPV's into more viable targets without appreciably increasing their use in the event of hostilities.
Further, if the current missiles or at least parts of them, are approaching the end-of-service life, then coin would still be required to ensure that will go, "bang," if/when needed.
InterestedParty
Active Member
I assume that there are ITAR issues but could the Harpoons be gifted to Ukraine, the range is not excessive
Harpoons are probably still very useful with subs. I don't know how many encapsulations we have, but the biggest issue with Harpoon, being range, is less of an issue with a sub. Also the lack of advanced stealth features, are less of an issue when attacking less well defended land targets, for ships torpedoes are still pretty stealthy.
Superhornets, P8 and subs mean that that is decent number of platforms. I don't think we will be upgrading them, but I also think we aren't yet ready to get rid of them. If NSM becomes sub launched, and LRASM JSM becoming P8, and Superhornets are getting decommissioned, then it would be useful to get rid of them.
Not sure how useful they would be for Ukraine either. there would be other allies in the region that may appreciate bolting a launcher or reloads if required.
Superhornets, P8 and subs mean that that is decent number of platforms. I don't think we will be upgrading them, but I also think we aren't yet ready to get rid of them. If NSM becomes sub launched, and LRASM JSM becoming P8, and Superhornets are getting decommissioned, then it would be useful to get rid of them.
Not sure how useful they would be for Ukraine either. there would be other allies in the region that may appreciate bolting a launcher or reloads if required.
I feel strongly that this will very much be the case.
Big upgrade in capability over the Armidales.
Suspect we will ultimately end up with more, and possibly bigger.
Regards,
Massive
Ideally:
5 New FFM built in Japan
5 New FFM in Australia
Extend Hunter build to 10 & shorten drumbeat
Roll into 5 13DDX to replace the AWDs
Or something like that.
Regards,
Massive
I think there is a reasonable chance that more than three GPFs will be built overseas. Rumours indicate that the two tenderers gave options for a fourth ship as part of their submissions.
It wouldn't surprise me if Japan offered the last two classic Mogamis plus the requisit three upgraded Mogamis, all built overseas. Such a deal could see us with three or four Mogamis before 2030. This might be how the government demonstrates greater commitment to defence expenditure and gets the Americans off their back.
I tend to think that if more frigates are required then they are more likely to be of the GPF rather than Hunter platform. They will be cheaper and quicker. I would think the government will hold the 8 Australian builds regardless of what is ordered from overseas. The industry backlash would be significant if they cut this, and the expenditure is a long way in the future (i.e there is no need to take the pain now; leave that for someone else).
I can see the Hunter platform evolving into the AWD replacement. They will be mature by that time, much cheaper, and ready for an update for batch two (new versions of AI Aegis, laser systems, hypersonics etc).
I'm not sure the 13DDX would be sufficient to warrant moving away from the Hunter platform. An evolved Hunter would be more than a capability match
Doubt we see Japan sell 2 classic Mogamis but one Mogami being stationed here and used for training prior to delivery would be a no brainer, much like the Spanish did with the F100 for 4-5 months.
Possibly, and yes basing in Australia is another option.
I'm looking at it from the Japanese perspective. Releasing some of the classic Mogamis would enable them to replace with the upgraded Mogami. That's an improvement for them, and given how fast the pump them out, result in a one year delay to the overal program (2034 rather than 2033).
From Australia's perspective, while the upgraded Mogami is the better platform, the classic Mogami would still meet our needs and be an improvement on what we have. It would provide us the training ships to prepare for the later fleet, and give us some much needed capability now. Hulls 11 and 12 are scheduled for commissioning in FY27.
I keep coming back in my mind to how the government plans to cope with the evolving defence expenditure picture. The pressure from the US to step up our investment is significant, the global political situation continues to decline, and the government needs to find a way that it does any investment on its terms. Early GPFs seems to be a good fit for that.