Maybe we could also ask what is our alliance obligation should the USA invade Canada or Greenland.
Cheers S
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Cheers S
Japan will hand over all IP if the Mogami is chosen for the GPF . Japan sweetens Australian frigate offer | The Australian Naval Institute
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Modifications to any design can be problematic, the best recent example being the USN's Constellation program involving modifications to the Fremm frigate.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
That's turned into a dog's breakfast. It looks nothing like the original Fremm design. I think they wanted Oliver Hazard Perry Mark II. The main gun at 57mm is smaller than the European designs. And the superstructure is completely different. Only the hull is pretty well the same.
I would hope any changes to Mogami, if we get it, are only to operating systems and not to the overall structure of the ship.
The Government has been very public about stating that the first batch of Australian built ships will be the same design as the overseas built ones.
I would suggest the IP is more useful for through life support, rather than construction design.
Over time ships need to be updated for obsolescence, deficiencies and for new capabilities. Having the full set of original data is important to be able to base line off. Otherwise you are always going back to the OEM, which is expensive and time consuming, and sometimes they don't want to provide assistance for niche capabilities.
If IP provision is full, the more valuable component would be software, be that for the propulsion, ship services or the combat system.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
If common sense (rare these days) prevails, we will get the Mogami with minimal changes and get a very capable ship. Here's hoping we don't stop at 11 and keep evolving the design.
Aus Tender standing offer notice: SON4159952
Do you really think that an order for 11 will happen?
I would hope so, but I am thinking it will be reduced to 9, at best.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Sadly I think your thought of a reduced order will be the likely outcome. The only good thing is that if a new GPF is built every 2 years on average then at the end of the build the very first GPF could be withdrawn from service rather than being given an expensive and drawn out MLU. The withdrawn vessel could then be sold or 'gifted' to another navy.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV a reduced order could actually be a good time, with the giant caveat that it would be highly dependent on how things were actually handled.
I have in mind something along the lines of the following:
Part one, reduce the SEA 3000 order from 11 vessels overall to five, all to be built overseas. This would be in an attempt to get more vessels into RAN service as quickly as possible with the least amount of risk, since these should be more or less a MOTS purchase and depending on the class ultimately chosen, would be coming from an active yard with a hot production line.
Part two would be for Australia to work with the oversea yard/designer as well as a domestic yard to develop the class selected for SEA 3000 into an Australian version fitted with the kit used by the RAN as well as all the normal/standard Australian connections, fitting, etc. This would be then built in an Australian yard once the design and yard are ready. A build run of perhaps six vessels here might make sense.
Part three would then follow, with the SEA 300 GPF's built overseas getting decommissioned/sold as they approach their mid-life rather than undergoing a MLU. Instead, they would be replaced with new vessels of either a newer/later batch of the Australianized class built domestically, or perhaps of an entirely new design that might be more appropriate to naval and defence developments as well as the then expected security situation.
An important (well, important IMO) consideration is that AusGov and the RAN need to make sure that there is a regular and continuing flow of work to Australian yards, to keep the boom/bust cycles in naval construction as well as to avoid future valleys of death. Part of the reason why Australian and the RAN are in the situation they are in now is because multiple successive gov'ts did not ensure that there was a continual flow of work and orders for naval construction. This in turn lead to Australia not having the production capacity really needed, as well as a class of ship which was approaching the time that early production vessels need to decommission whilst no replacement vessels were ready to be brought into service to replace them.
More like a redesign from the keel up, keeping only a superficial visual resemblance, isn't it?
Eleven is too many for a single design.
Minimum batches should be two, maximum six (if built over a short period) any more than that and you are building in obsolescence.
That said, I have no issue with multiple evolving batches.
Imagine a batch of three to six with deliveries over three to six years followed by prototyping for the next batch taking two to three years before full rate production kicks of again.
Minimum batches should be two, maximum six (if built over a short period) any more than that and you are building in obsolescence.
That said, I have no issue with multiple evolving batches.
Imagine a batch of three to six with deliveries over three to six years followed by prototyping for the next batch taking two to three years before full rate production kicks of again.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Mid life modernisations of the scale done by the RAN in recent years are really a false economy.
Better to either on sell them at the midlife or limit the scale of the upgrades and move them into lower threat level missions and build replacements for the original role.
The Aegis upgrades for the Hobart class are a perfect example of this.
Better to either on sell them at the midlife or limit the scale of the upgrades and move them into lower threat level missions and build replacements for the original role.
The Aegis upgrades for the Hobart class are a perfect example of this.
Thanks for the reply
Sea 3000 is one of defences biggest projects.
We may not have selected the winning design but it’s still a “thing”
Yet go for a look on the government defence site either the department or specifically the Navy and what do you find?
Give it a go
The navy future ships have the Arafura class, Hunters and future submarines.
Future tier two frigates don’t get a look in and yet they will make a sizeable proportion of the combat fleet and are intended to be in service before the Hunters
Now in this day and age google will provide a wealth of info, but surely the defence department could be a bit more informative.
Hopefully I’m wrong and have missed it!
Regards S
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Pretty much the case which explains why the program is best described as a C-F.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really. Until selections have been announced and contracts signed things are still very much up in the air. Take the first three vessels to be built in Australia for instance. If these vessels are to be built in a yard in WA, it is distinctly possible that the yard might not be ready to do so given what has been reported as going on with the landing craft builds. If this ends up pushing back the start of Australian builds by ~two years AND the Australian builds are to be of the same spec as the overseas builds (also meaning sourcing and importing components from overseas) then it is possible some of the components might not be available if there is a two year delay in the start of Australian construction.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
John,
it's a major C-F as Clint Eastwood would say!