Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Putting the costs aside as that was just a comment based on the Asiapacificdefence reporter article …acknowledge the fit out will double + the overall costs…I was impressed by April 2023 contract signing, and 12 months from being laid down to launch…30 months from contract signing to first launch…..noting it’s another three years till delivery On the first ship. How do we stack up on the Hobarts, Hunters, and GPFs?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Sorry, still not going to put the claimed costs aside. Between the price tag the writer listed, as well as comments about the design going to be the most advanced vessel class in the RSN, the information just does not add up. That in turn makes me question everything else in the article. Looking at other sources, it appears that there was less than a year between the contract being awarded for detailed design and first steel being cut. That in turn suggests to me that comparatively little had to be rearranged between the base design, or what will be the ST Marine's derivative.
From that, it could be the basic Danish design was something where things either did not require rearrangement, or the design had sufficient built-in flexibility to speed things along. Or alternately, the planned capabilities for the MRCV are such that not as much time is required to design the capabilities required. A per vessel price tag some USD$50 mil. less than the per vessel cost of the new frigates the Philippines Navy purchased from S. Korea's HHI makes me think that the new RSN vessel is going to be capable for their needs, but not necessarily something particularly advanced or capable compared to major warships in other navies. Such complexity, or the lack thereof, can also have a major impact on the time and effort it takes to actually build the vessel.
Looking at the Hunter-class frigates as an example, the design is to include the Aegis CMS, which on it's own is quite expensive with a price tag in the hundred of millions of US dollars. In addition to that, there is also the costs and complexities involved in hull quieting with machinery isolation and rafting, all to improve the ASW capabilities of the new frigates. Such work is expensive and time consuming to design, and adds complexity and cost to the build as well. If the upcoming RSN MRCV is not really designed or intended for ASW ops, then it would most likely not have the work to quiet the hull done. This would drop the cost per hull as well as likely leave a design that is faster and easier to build.
Then there is are also somethings to consider about the yards where the production is taking place. The GPF is a great example, since AFAIK the 'yard' where these will be built in Australia does not exist yet. Hard to compare production from an established yard which has had an active order book to maintain activity, with a yet to be built yard which also does not have an established, never mind skilled, work force. As for the Hunter-class build and before that, the Hobart-class I <cough, lack of continuous build, cough> recall there being something referred to as a 'valley of death' in terms of ship construction. Hard to maintain rapid and efficient production if there is a lack of ongoing activity.
Now if Australia and Singapore were both the seek comparable vessels for essentially the same roles and service areas/conditions and there was still a major difference in the costs or time involved, then looking at such comparisons might be more relevant. Right now though, the vessels are different designs, for different navies, with different intended roles and likely operating in different areas under different conditions.
I like the MRCV but it is not a frigate, not a GP frigate and definitely not an ASW or air warfare one, it is quite literally a multirole vessel with a Corvette level armaments and sensors.
To be honest, when it comes time to replace the OPVs, that is the sort of vessel I hope we consider.
To be honest, when it comes time to replace the OPVs, that is the sort of vessel I hope we consider.
Maybe some thought should be given to what border force replace their Capes with in the near future. 20 year life and the oldest already 12 years old
My suggestion would be to transfer Navy’s newer Capes to BF and replace those gifted patrol boats with a larger 95 m 2200 t sized OPV for Navy
Ties in well with the completion of the sixth Arafura class
Collectively we need more OPVs not patrol boats
Arafura’s flight / multi mission deck will prove its worth for many a role.
We need vessels with mission flexibility.
We need increased platform numbers with the above attributes.
Cutting the original 12 OPVs to six made no sense on any level.
Cheers S
Civmec eyes joint japan frigate program.
asia.nikkei.com
(now paywalled.)
www.civmec.com.au
-‘Australian heavy construction and engineering company Civmec plans to focus more on naval shipbuilding, hoping to leverage the technology it has developed in its core resources business to land orders for the new frigates that Australia plans to build together with Japan.’
-Shipbuilding makes up less than 10% of Civmec sales.
-"We really want to be the best shipbuilder Australia has ever had," CEO Pat Tallon told Nikkei.
-The company forecasts that shipbuilding's share of overall sales will rise to around 25% for the year ending June 2026.
-Eventually, it wants shipbuilding and resources to make up equal shares of Civmec's revenue.
-Civmec completed construction of the largest shipyard in western Australia. With an area of 53,000 square meters, the site is large enough to build four Mogami-class destroyers at once.
-In 2024, the government announced plans to build or refurbish 79 vessels domestically over the next 30 years. Last month, it announced the allocation of AU$12 billion to expand the Henderson shipyard, which houses several shipbuilders' facilities, including the Civmec yard completed in 2020. Eight upgraded Mogami-class ships are to be built at the facility.
Australian shipbuilder Civmec eyes joint Japan frigate project
Company diversifies as prices fluctuate in mainstay resource business
asia.nikkei.com
Naval Shipbuilding - Civmec
www.civmec.com.au
-‘Australian heavy construction and engineering company Civmec plans to focus more on naval shipbuilding, hoping to leverage the technology it has developed in its core resources business to land orders for the new frigates that Australia plans to build together with Japan.’
-Shipbuilding makes up less than 10% of Civmec sales.
-"We really want to be the best shipbuilder Australia has ever had," CEO Pat Tallon told Nikkei.
-The company forecasts that shipbuilding's share of overall sales will rise to around 25% for the year ending June 2026.
-Eventually, it wants shipbuilding and resources to make up equal shares of Civmec's revenue.
-Civmec completed construction of the largest shipyard in western Australia. With an area of 53,000 square meters, the site is large enough to build four Mogami-class destroyers at once.
-In 2024, the government announced plans to build or refurbish 79 vessels domestically over the next 30 years. Last month, it announced the allocation of AU$12 billion to expand the Henderson shipyard, which houses several shipbuilders' facilities, including the Civmec yard completed in 2020. Eight upgraded Mogami-class ships are to be built at the facility.
Attachments
Disagree. MRCV's air warfare capability should be better than Mogami and most frigates out there (Seafire radar + Aster 30... likely with some built-in ABM capability. Plus 76mm Strales for self-defence). It most definitely is going to be a high-end GP frigate.
Only thing lacking is towed VDS sonar, but that appears to be a conscious trade-off in favor of carrying 2 large USVs (vs only 1 on Mogami).
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Is there actual confirmation of the electronics fitout and specific missiles which will be part of the loadout? When I checked the RSN factsheet they have released here, it mentions Thales multi-function & fire control radars, but not that the MRCV was actually getting the Thales Sea Fire AESA radar. Similarly, the missile loadout mentioned in the factsheet lists MICA and ASTER, but not which ASTER.
For that matter, what VLS is supposed to be getting fitted. From the model, it shows a 32-cell VLS which might or might not be accurate since it is 'just' a model. Still seems that there is quite a bit not yet out in the public domain, and some of what is out, or at least what has been reported, seems to clash.
Good point... I don't think there has been an outright official confirmation yet, but there are a number of solid hints.
- There have been several media reports that the Thales radar for MRCV is Sea Fire and the Aster variant is "B1 NT" which would be Aster 30. I can't quite tell which media is the original source for this (as they tend to plagiarize each other), but it looks like it could be Naval News which typically are well informed.
- On the MRCV model the radar also has Sea Fire's distinctive cropped corners and octagonal shape (though not on all CGI renderings).
- Perhaps more conclusive is that in 2024 there was a large ~€400M export license for radars from France to Singapore, which would align with the timing of the MRCV contract. I can't think of any other French radar that could have been sold to Singapore in that time frame, as Thales FR's portfolio isn't so large and Singapore is already equipped with Ground Fire radars
- Finally, assuming all the above signals re: Sea Fire and Aster 30 are correct, it would be rather odd for the RSN to limit itself only to Aster 15, given that it already uses Aster 30 on the Formidable class and that Sea Fire was explicitly designed to go hand in hand with Aster 30 and make full use of its potential
It was built with larger ships in mind, up to about the Hobart class in its current configuration. Given the size of the Mogami's, it would be a reasonable fit for the yard. I hope Mitsubishi and some other large japanese firms involved acquire nearby land and open local offices, warehouses etc to support the project locally.
Aww. Not sure I would go that far, perhaps similar is a better word.. Seafire is a nice radar, but what is it doing that OPY-2 isn't? Seafire is the older radar? But the Japanese aren't very transparent and 3rd party assessment is non-existent in public domain. Aster30 is nice. But ESSM and SM-2/SM-6 isn't half bad either. Sm-6 vs Aster30, SM-6 is probably the better gadget. Both classes are being a bit coy with details. Mogami in Australian service is also a bit more unknown particularly when it comes down to what actually and how many of what get placed inside the VLS. Mogami has a 5", way more land strike potential.. SeaRAM..
Mogami seems to have a very comprehensive low observable aspect, I would be curious how each performance in radar, thermal and under water noise performance.
Dimension wise its closer to Hunter class. But hunter class is a bit more premium in fitout, tonnage etc. High end frigate is going to mean something different when we start seeing over 10,000t+, Aegis, CEC, 64 strike length VLS and orbital interception capabilities.
How is Singapore able to bolt together a pretty good frigate when the Europeans seem so light weight in comparison, given Singapore is using mostly euro kit?
I imagine Singapore and Australia will be keen to benchmark the two frigates against each other.
The Mogamis also have a capable AESA radar, and given they have strike length Mk41, the capacity to embark SM-3 or SM-6 (although whether their CMS has the capacity to manage SM-3 engagements is not known). With all due respect Aster is not (yet at least) up to that standard. I very much doubt that SM-3, or even SM-6, is part of the load out of the original ships with only 16 cells, but the evolved ships with 32 might well embark some.
The MRCV will undoubtedly be good ships which should well fit Singapore’s needs, and they will operate them professionally. But don’t over sell them; they are not some sort of mini DDG.
(Stingray posting the same thing in more detail at the same time - great minds and all that)
The MRCV will undoubtedly be good ships which should well fit Singapore’s needs, and they will operate them professionally. But don’t over sell them; they are not some sort of mini DDG.
(Stingray posting the same thing in more detail at the same time - great minds and all that)
I get the impression that Civmec is positioning itself for the best deal it can get in the ship building program, and it is attempting to push Austal into a lesser or weaker eventual arrangement. Not unexpected in competitive business.Civmec eyes joint japan frigate program.
(now paywalled.)Australian shipbuilder Civmec eyes joint Japan frigate project
Company diversifies as prices fluctuate in mainstay resource business
Naval Shipbuilding - Civmec
-‘Australian heavy construction and engineering company Civmec plans to focus more on naval shipbuilding, hoping to leverage the technology it has developed in its core resources business to land orders for the new frigates that Australia plans to build together with Japan.’
-Shipbuilding makes up less than 10% of Civmec sales.
-"We really want to be the best shipbuilder Australia has ever had," CEO Pat Tallon told Nikkei.
-The company forecasts that shipbuilding's share of overall sales will rise to around 25% for the year ending June 2026.
-Eventually, it wants shipbuilding and resources to make up equal shares of Civmec's revenue.
-Civmec completed construction of the largest shipyard in western Australia. With an area of 53,000 square meters, the site is large enough to build four Mogami-class destroyers at once.
-In 2024, the government announced plans to build or refurbish 79 vessels domestically over the next 30 years. Last month, it announced the allocation of AU$12 billion to expand the Henderson shipyard, which houses several shipbuilders' facilities, including the Civmec yard completed in 2020. Eight upgraded Mogami-class ships are to be built at the facility.
It's not going to be the prime contractor, that goes to Austal. It will need to give up its facility. So that just leaves its workforce. I don't see how its ex-Luerssen division fits in, as it seemingly competes directly with what Austal will provide.
It's all still very messy, and I look forward to an announcement early next year on how it will work.
Civmec knows that its position in the oil and gas industry is declining and it has had limited success in the WA civil construction game. I think it sees ship building as a way out of a substantial investment it made in a facility that is currently heavily under utilised. It is potentially a white elephant to them.
My best take is that Civmec will form a JV with the Government for the facility and set it up like ANI in Osborne for the sole purpose of ship building, maybe its a 50/50 arrangement with the Government buying out a portion for Civmec to reinvest elsewhere. Gives them a very nice stable income stream as a landlord for the next 50 years without any hastle.
Civmec will then likely provide the bulk of the blue collar labour as a subcontractor to Austal. Goes to their strength which is construction. They have access to, and the management system for, a very large workforce, more than Austal could ever bring.
Austal will act as the prime, have the relationship with MHI, provide design integration (both of these have already been set) and I would expect consutruction leadership (project managers through to field superintendents and supervisors (seems to flow naturally from the above).
I wonder if Civmec ex-Luerssen division gets shut down or sold to Austal, and I wonder if MHI takes an ownership stake in Austal.
Yes, that all sounds logical. Neither Austal nor Civmec’s performance in shipbuilding fills me with confidence, nevertheless the political decision to build in WA makes some such arrangement highly probable. Of course the next government might decide that Tasmania, or Outer Mongolia, could do a better (or at least as good of a) job, but until then that’s about where we are.
When Australia curtailled production of the Arafura class we really did throw out the baby with the bathwater. We still need a high end constabulary vessel. We also need drone motherships. The Arafura was the wrong ship but IMO the requirement for a corvette/MRCV still exists and should in fact be one of our priorities. IMO Australia is far more likely to be involved in Grey Zone conflict than an all out war.
In fact how well we handle a Grey Zone conflict could reduce the chance of a full scale war. I would like to see us with a vessel capable of dealing with any Chinese Coast Guard or militia fishing vessels sent to probe our defences. As a bonus this ship should also be large enough to operate as a drone mothership.
Be interesting to see what Austal will do with the naval base facility, doesn’t seem big enough for the LCM project and the Guardian class program is near completion.
Civmec has the only facility in wa that can build 100m+ vessels, stated they are in for the long haul and my guess is they make a play for further expansion in the future with another facility in newcastle for sustainment and potential future build programs in the east to mimic what they do in the west.
Based on what we know about AEGIS integration requirements (the fire control loop module), I would not be counting on SM-3 or SM-6 aboard the Mogamis.
There has only been a single radar outside the US (CEAFAR) that has been allowed to integrate with those missiles. Not a single radar from Europe, Japan or Korea.
There’s a reason why the JMSDF has been forced to adopt 2 completely different ecosystems - a Japanese CMS/radar combo that is limited to ESSM (or their homegrown SAM), and the standard USN AEGIS ecosystem (including US radar) for ships with SM-3/SM-6.
There has only been a single radar outside the US (CEAFAR) that has been allowed to integrate with those missiles. Not a single radar from Europe, Japan or Korea.
There’s a reason why the JMSDF has been forced to adopt 2 completely different ecosystems - a Japanese CMS/radar combo that is limited to ESSM (or their homegrown SAM), and the standard USN AEGIS ecosystem (including US radar) for ships with SM-3/SM-6.
ESSM, SM2, SM6 and SM3 are all the same family of missiles (siblings and cousins all made by Raytheon). They are all based on the same combat system comms interface and mid flight update. The integration of one missile in this series provides a relatively straight forward integration of the rest.
I'll note also that the Mogami combat system is a based on a Lockheed Martin product, the same OEM as the Aegis system. One would think that there are commonalities in design architecture between the two.
https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/transcripts/2025-08-05/press-conference-canberra
I went back and reviewed the government announcement of the Mogami GPF. Sen Conroy clearly says that it will have the ability to fire SM2 and SM6. And Tomahawk for that matter.
Last edited:
Agree.
The Austal yard might remain for small boats. The production run for the evolved capes will extend over the next decade for Border Force, and then the earliest ones for the RAN will need replacement. Guardians will require replacement/expansion at about the same time. Patrol boats will keep it in business for decades.
My understanding is that the landing craft medium will be made in this facility as well. I think the length of an LCM is about 55 metres, so slightly less than an evolved cape. Fits nicely.
Doing all the small boats there keeps the main Civmec area clear for the LCHs and GPFs, and any growth work that comes from these two (of which I think there will be).
Unless there is a direction from the Government to consolidate all ship and boat building within the Civmec complex, and release the existing Austal plot for other purposes, I can't see Austal discontinuing it.
At some point the government will come back to the drone ship program and I suspect this will look drastically different to the original vision. Probably smaller and probably within the capability of either the existing Austal facilities or the Civmec precinct and probably in larger numbers.
I am sceptical for a third Newcastle ship building yard. I know Civmec have the old Forgacs site there in mothballs. It would require however for the Government to announce a fundamental change to the number of ship platforms it intends to procure and the timeframe for this to occur. So perhaps if we find out in the 2026 IIP that we are going for a 30 frigate Navy rather than the current 20.
Otherwise the existing program is only sufficient to sustain the Henderson and Osborne yards.