Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
SeaRam for RANs upgraded Mogamis, both Hughes and Hammond have stated that.
Hunter and every other RAN vessel that uses phalanx = unknown.

Mark 54 torps and NSM, probably 4x4(16)(-different to Japans setup)
RAN has been quoted at Indo-Pacific as being “interested” in upgrading it’s Phalanx “fleet wide” to the RAM, in light of SeaRAM coming to Navy via the Mogami FFM.

Adm Hammond mentioned on day one that he thinks that “Integrated Air and Missile Defence” will “get a look at” under NDS 2026 and the updated IIP 2026.

The DSR / IIP 2024 also listed a “Phalanx upgrade project” and as previously stated I am not aware of any Phalanx upgrade beyond the Block 1B2 standard our Phalanx systems have already been upgraded to, besides SeaRAM, though I admit there could be company offerings for further Phalanx upgrades that have not yet been made public.

I also recall reporting on how impressed USN was with the operational performance of RAM Block 2 in the Red Sea operations, not so long back. i’m sure the RAN is aware of that feedback…

Taken together a new RAN project being unveiled in IIP26 to acquire SeaRAM / RAM - MK.49 GMLS across the fleet, would touch on all of these points and realities…
 
Last edited:

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
I believe they could have done this from ship 4 in the originally attend 12 vessel fleet!
2028 for the first to be in service. The MMPV 90 also has a 3000nm range and requires twice the crew of the OPV. The cost would jump to $600-700 million each aswell. Wasn’t worth it imo…

All 6 opvs will be in service by 2028 and the upgraded Mogami delivered in 2029.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I believe they could have done this from ship 4 in the originally attend 12 vessel fleet!
Why would Australia have wanted to go down this route though? It would have involved introducing yet another class of vessel into the RAN, which if comparable to the fitout for the Bulgarian Navy would mean the class would be a bit different from other classes in RAN service. Consider this, the Arafura-class OPV's for the RAN have a displacement of 1,650 tonnes or ~1,819 tons, while the new Bulgarian corvettes have a displacement of ~2,300 tons, or about 26% greater displacement as well as ~10 m greater length.

When you start increasing the dimensions and displacement like that, the internals are also going to be a bit different, never mind the drastically different fitout of ship systems with the Bulgarian Navy getting what are functionally a pair of corvettes. The systems fitout would also drive up the price of the vessel, with the ships costing an estimated €220 mil. per vessel or nearly AUD$400 mil. per vessel. Keep in mind that this is also for vessels built in an active shipyard in Bulgaria, which would likely mean that the costs to produce the same in Australia would have been even higher.

All to deliver multi-role corvettes to the RAN, which means that the shortcomings of corvettes in RAN service would remain.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
If a decision is made to increase the fleet of OPVs this would be the obvious choice. Mind you, I'd have Mk.41 cells for ESSM.
IMO the price for the Arafura-class OPV's was already a bit high for an OPV, some AUD$300 mil. per vessel had the original build plan been carried out. Taking the OPV90 design and then having it modified to be similar to the corvettes that Bulgaria is building would just be even more expensive, yet not have the capabilities or reach of the frigates that Australia has, is building, and will be building more of or having built overseas. That is also before one takes into consideration how long it would take for Australia to start receiving these proposed vessels, or how long it would take to get them into service once the RAN receives them.

It looks like it will have taken Bulgaria ~five years from cutting first steel, to the lead vessel's entry into service, and again this is for work being done in Bulgaria at an active yard. If Australia were to place an order now, without any detailed design work getting done, then we would likely be looking at first delivery being some time in ~2030, and that is assuming that there is available yard space overseas and any long-lead items are readily available. If memory serves, the lead RAN Mogami-class frigate to be built in Japan is expected to enter service in 2030 and that at least has already been ordered. What would people rather the RAN focus on? Getting new FFG's into service, or getting new FSG's into service? Similarly, what would people rather Australian yards and naval construction industries focus on, building the Hunter-class and Mogami-class frigates, or some new class of corvette? Lastly, what would people rather the RAN crew, guided missile frigates and destroyers, or guided missile corvettes? After all, a guided missile corvette crew is likely to be a little smaller than that of a frigate, but there will need to be some of the same specialist personnel which are already in short supply in the RAN?

Something people still seem to keep forgetting, or perhaps not understanding, is that one needs to look several years into the future when talking about ordering and having new vessels, especially warships, get designed and then built. There would also likely be a few years of work required before construction even begins and consideration also needs to be given to what personnel and facilities are already getting tasked to do.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Sounds like some of the current shareholders have an issue with Hanwha, this seems like a campaign to force Hanwha to sell up (they've already tried to put measures in place to stop any further expansion of Hanwha's holdings).
ADA was setup as a seperate company to ring fence the SEA 3000 contract so there's no security issues there.
3 more paywalled articles out today…




 

SammyC

Well-Known Member
3 more paywalled articles out today…




Interesting quote from Mr Gregg below from the The West article. If I read between the lines "nearby exiting facilities" infers the ex-Silverlakes sheds for the LCH build. Sounds like the JV with Civmec is on the nose with Austal.

Mr Gregg said Austal’s shipyard at Henderson and nearby exiting facilities could handle the company’s contracts to build medium and heavy landing craft for the Australian Defence Force.

However, the company needed clarity about how and where the eight Mogami-class frigates earmarked for Henderson were going to be built for the Royal Australian Navy under the Federal Government’s contract with Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
 
Last edited:
Top