Sadly, we can’t have an HMAS Gillard given a certain PM gutted the proposed recapitalisation of the RAN.
That 4th Hobart would be pretty handy right now…. as would some new subs….. as would’ve a stockpile of Tomahawks…. thanks Julia.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
That 4th Hobart would be pretty handy right now…. as would some new subs….. as would’ve a stockpile of Tomahawks…. thanks Julia.
The sites being considered for the sub base are apparently Port Kembla, Newcastle and Brisbane. I personally thought Kembla made the most sense (as does Defence reportedly) as it gives the quickest access to the continental shelf (although longest transit times) and access to the workforce of southern and south west Sydney. It’s also in close proximity to Lucas Heights so there’s the opportunity to concentrate activities with the SSNs and scale up the nuclear industry.
Convert Williamstown into Port Gilliard naval base then government wont shut it down
It would need to be signed off by the Navy, the deputy PM and defence industry minister. That would be a variation, and cost more, and then someone would have to do some sort of integration work. No matter how minimal, even if its just to check where munitions can be loaded and firing arcs, money and time. The political cost is too high. If there is any modification, and the project is delayed or costs more, it will be on them. Also many would see that as a downgrade. Part of the low crewing is weapons that are low crewing. So any changes, no matter how simple will be heavily contested.
I actually think they will be delivered with them. SeaRam isn't the worst system, and it was what the ships were designed with in mind, and its a US munition and system. It would be useful to have some of them in the pool and become familiar with them. SeaRAM would be IMO a better fit for things like LPD/LHD/AOR..
I think its a pretty good outcome. There was a lot of focus on up arming OPVs.. Now we are getting Mogamis, that whole concept seems to be unpopular. The evolution of this project has been interesting, we showed no interest in the original frigates back in 2017-2018..
11 Mogami + 6 Hunter + 3 AWD.. Gets us 20 pretty good surface combatants.
d-ron84
Member
Since we're getting SSNs, is there really any benefit to having an east coast sub base?
The biggest reason for it was the slow transit speeds of Diesel Electric boats, we don't really have that problem anymore.
With the defence budget as tight as it is, why spend an inordinate amount of money setting up a base from scratch? It's a big undertaking , you not only need to build the infrastructure to support the military side, you also need all the defence contractors, logistics support et al.
I can see so many more uses for that money
The biggest reason for it was the slow transit speeds of Diesel Electric boats, we don't really have that problem anymore.
With the defence budget as tight as it is, why spend an inordinate amount of money setting up a base from scratch? It's a big undertaking , you not only need to build the infrastructure to support the military side, you also need all the defence contractors, logistics support et al.
I can see so many more uses for that money
Redundancy in case one base is hit.
Access to the major population centres for both maintenance and crewing.
SSNs are def much faster but also can’t magically teleport - in high tempo operations in the South Pacific you would not want to have to transit all the way to Perth and back to repair / rearm.
To be honest if we’re only going to have one I’d close WA. But would strongly prefer both.
FBE is also going to be too small for the fleet we’re building.
d-ron84
Member
Redundancy isn't really a reason for the basing, otherwise we would have the DDGs and LHDs split between FBE and FBW.
We already have two maintenance centers, ASC-West in Henderson WA, and the terribly named ASC-North in Osbourne SA.
We also have two places to re-arm, Stirling and Eden.
Port Kembla (the only viable option for an east coast base for many reasons) isn't really a major population center.
And you would close the one that actually has the people and infrastructure (granted it needs to be upgraded, but not starting from scratch)
And good luck moving any useful amount of the squadron east, many reasons we are based over here
It’s a one week trip from Sydney to Perth and back at 25 knots. If operations are taking place anywhere but the SCS / northern Indian Ocean approaches it’s significantly faster from the east coast. Like days faster.Redundancy isn't really a reason for the basing, otherwise we would have the DDGs and LHDs split between FBE and FBW.
We already have two maintenance centers, ASC-West in Henderson WA, and the terribly named ASC-North in Osbourne SA.
We also have two places to re-arm, Stirling and Eden.
Port Kembla (the only viable option for an east coast base for many reasons) isn't really a major population center.
And you would close the one that actually has the people and infrastructure (granted it needs to be upgraded, but not starting from scratch)
And good luck moving any useful amount of the squadron east, many reasons we are based over here
Wollongong most definitely is a major population centre. All of the greater Sydney area’s growth is going to the south and south west. And high speed rail will likely connect it to a larger population pool of c. 6m within an hour’s travel.
ANU, UNSW and UOW also have well established nuclear physics programs. ANU has Nobel prize winners in their Physics faculty. ANSTO is a half hour drive away from Kembla.
Cutting that pool of labour out of the broader SSN ecosystem would be madness.
What are the “many reasons” that they should be based solely in Perth?
The virtue of the 12 OPV’s was time!
All 12 in service in the by the early 30’s
A great asset as is without any weaponising but for a sizeable fleet of complimentary S100 sized UAVs.
The proposed fleet mentioned above is way off into the 2040s.
Agree the Arafura’s are really not one thing or the other.
We should have got a bigger OPV.
That said we have them in construction and we should have worked with that practically.
I have no doubt we will pay “defence options “ tax on cutting their numbers in half while we transition very slowly to our much bigger and capable fleet.
We must remember the time frames involved with projects.
I think we get the mindset that because we have a project and proposed vessel numbers it’s somehow already in existence which of course it is not.
The media need to reality check the politicians when they talk this way.
Regards S
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Defence Connect are pushing the Japanese ASEV destroyer concept as a potential replacement for the Hobart class now that the Mogami deal is almost sealed. What do you guys think of the concept? How does it compare to an upgunned evolved Hunter hull in regards to manpower, weapons, etc?
I do understand the precedent it sets can turn into a slippery slope as it has for the USN with the use of names only vaguely related to the USN. I personally always felt HMAS Choules should've been HMAS Bracegirdle of RANBT fame.
What I'm hoping for maybe is just more public exposure of RAN history in general. Everyone learns about Gallipoli and Kokoda in school but there's barely a footnote on anything the RAN has done. I don't think a single one of my extension history classmates could've named an action the RAN was involved in and I don't blame them for it, seeing as it is completely omitted from the curriculum.
On almost every occasion I've told someone I'm enlisting the first question is something along the lines of "tanks or infantry?" and once corrected they start talking about the latest shipbuilding scandal or AUKUS because that's almost all the public hears about. How do we expect to achieve a "whole of nation" approach to expanding the Navy if the whole of the nation within the relevant age bracket can't think of anything the RAN has done other than be old and over budget?
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
With the Hunter’s quieter hull & drivetrain, I believe that it would be a superior ASW platform compared to the Mogami.
The ASEV Destroyer is obviously very capable but, as all the integration work for the CEAFAR 2, AEGIS & 9LV systems have been done at great expense for the Hunter class, it’s probable that Defence would want to stick with an AAW version of that platform. If there is new technology & capability available on the ASEV, then there may be interest.
Is this a safer option to develop ,a number of these should be able to be locally quite cheaply instead of putting all missiles in one ship
www.twz.com
Navy Unmasks Its Vision For Fleet Of Uncrewed Modular Surface Attack Craft
The Navy's plans for a family of MASC drone vessels are centered on containerized missile launchers and sensor packages.
www.twz.com
I’m not for ASEV but I am for some replenishment ships. 1 currently under construction, 5 planned by 2036, First in service 2028.
www.navalnews.com
Wiki(Japan)
‘The 14,500-(standard)ton replenishment ship (14,500 Tongata Hokyukan) is a class of replenishment ship that the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) plans to build based on the Defense Force Buildup Plan enacted in December 2022. The construction cost has been budgeted at 83 billion yen.’ (550-600 million usd)
‘the hull itself is a slightly enlarged version of the Mashu-class replenishment ship, with no major changes, and is said to have a shape that is conscious of stealth. However, the image shows that the bridge is located at the front of the hull, which is significantly different from the Mashu-class and Towada-class. In addition, it has side lamps. The addition of vehicle carrying capacity and the automation of cargo transfer equipment within the ship will reduce manpower, reducing the capacity by approximately 40 from the 140 people of the Towada-class to approximately 100 people. Although omitted from the image, it is assumed that they will be equipped with twin rudders and twin propellers.’
’14,500 tons is the standard displacement, which is only 1,000 tons more than the standard displacement of the current Mashu-class supply ships, which is 13,500 tons. However, this is nearly double the acquisition cost per Mashu-class supply ship, which was 43 billion yen. The acquisition plans are about 20 years apart, and even taking into account rising material prices, the difference is so large that it seems they are planning some kind of new equipment? However, no such information is listed.’ (Full load displacement between 25,000 and 30,000tons)
Heres an idea…
-Order 3 or more AORs on top of the Japanese order.
-Sell the Supply class back to Spain before 2030 and stop them from building another one at almost twice the price in 2026, 2030 commissioning.
-Put in an offer for the last Alvaro de Bazan frigate that could be upgraded after the Hobarts and stop the fleet dropping to 8 ships.
Spain would get 2 replenishment ships for a similar cost to just 1 new build and maybe some cash and in return we would get the Cristobal Colon.
Spain would still have 4 Alvaro de Bazan frigates and 3 new F110s(2028/29/30), end 2030. An additional 2 in(2031/32) with potentially 2 more to follow in(2033/34). A fleet that would require 2 replenishment ships…
www.janes.com
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
Wiki(Japan)
‘The 14,500-(standard)ton replenishment ship (14,500 Tongata Hokyukan) is a class of replenishment ship that the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) plans to build based on the Defense Force Buildup Plan enacted in December 2022. The construction cost has been budgeted at 83 billion yen.’ (550-600 million usd)
‘the hull itself is a slightly enlarged version of the Mashu-class replenishment ship, with no major changes, and is said to have a shape that is conscious of stealth. However, the image shows that the bridge is located at the front of the hull, which is significantly different from the Mashu-class and Towada-class. In addition, it has side lamps. The addition of vehicle carrying capacity and the automation of cargo transfer equipment within the ship will reduce manpower, reducing the capacity by approximately 40 from the 140 people of the Towada-class to approximately 100 people. Although omitted from the image, it is assumed that they will be equipped with twin rudders and twin propellers.’
’14,500 tons is the standard displacement, which is only 1,000 tons more than the standard displacement of the current Mashu-class supply ships, which is 13,500 tons. However, this is nearly double the acquisition cost per Mashu-class supply ship, which was 43 billion yen. The acquisition plans are about 20 years apart, and even taking into account rising material prices, the difference is so large that it seems they are planning some kind of new equipment? However, no such information is listed.’ (Full load displacement between 25,000 and 30,000tons)
Heres an idea…
-Order 3 or more AORs on top of the Japanese order.
-Sell the Supply class back to Spain before 2030 and stop them from building another one at almost twice the price in 2026, 2030 commissioning.
-Put in an offer for the last Alvaro de Bazan frigate that could be upgraded after the Hobarts and stop the fleet dropping to 8 ships.
Spain would get 2 replenishment ships for a similar cost to just 1 new build and maybe some cash and in return we would get the Cristobal Colon.
Spain would still have 4 Alvaro de Bazan frigates and 3 new F110s(2028/29/30), end 2030. An additional 2 in(2031/32) with potentially 2 more to follow in(2033/34). A fleet that would require 2 replenishment ships…
Spanish MoD green-lights construction of new combat supply ship for navy
Spanish state-owned shipbuilder Navantia has been awarded a contract for the construction of a new combat supply ship (BAC) for the Spanish Navy.
www.janes.com
Last edited:
Because ASC South is where they build MFUs. It makes perfect sense if you are in Adelaide and dealing with ASC - you know precisely where to go.
Moving the Submarine Squadron West was hard. Most of its people, and equally important, most of their partners, still come from the eastern states - and that is where their support networks are. Moving part of it east might actually be quite east.
My memory says these beasts came into fruition following the decision to cancel the AEGIS Ashore installs, however the main equipment had already been ordered. Four sets I think.
So these ships were built around the Lockheed Martin Spy7 radar, because that's the gear the Japanese Defence Force had. The panels were designed for a land based application, so are massive in size. Much bigger than the equivalent radar on the Canadian River Class. This results in an equally massive ship to house them.
If you think of the issues we had fitting the very large CEAFAR radar on the Hunters, then the ASEV is next level with its radar.
So, if you have a choice, then I would view this is not the path to go down. Pick the standard spy6, navalised spy7, or our CEA package. All are very good BMD radars that don't require a small planet to support them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Was it not possible to modify Japan's land Spy7 panels for ASEV, i.e. smaller or was it less expensive to just build a larger ship?
So following the US tradition … Albanese, Morrison, Turnbull, Abbot, Rudd, Gillard, Howard Keating, Hawke Fraser Whitlam … enough for a fleet of 11….. … realistically a roll call of people who did the bare minimum fur the ADF .