Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Tbone

Active Member
Is it searam or the mk launcher with 21 cells.. one is independent and one uses the ships sensors. I’d love to see the RAN put SeaRam on the Arafura class so they could be used as escort ships. One can dream!
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
[
Is it searam or the mk launcher with 21 cells.. one is independent and one uses the ships sensors. I’d love to see the RAN put SeaRam on the Arafura class so they could be used as escort ships. One can dream!
Would prefer the lighter MPLS for some flexibility on tier 3 ships.



Naval news report seems to suggest RAN prefers 2x Mk 49 launchers for Hunters over the phalanx or sea ram for increased magazine depth.

 
Last edited:

OldTex

Well-Known Member
[


Would prefer the lighter MPLS for some flexibility on tier 3 ships.



Naval news report seems to suggest RAN prefers 2x Mk 49 launchers for Hunters over the phalanx or sea ram for increased magazine depth.

The Naval News reporting mentions both SeaRam and the Mk 49 launchers with the latter being "the preferred choice on Hunter and other prospective vessels." and SeaRam to be fitted to the Upgraded Mogami 06FFM in line withe JMSDF specification. Hopefully the fitting of the Mk49 launchers to the Hunter class does not delay the introduction-into-service of those vessels due to the needed integration and redesign needed for the deck penetrating Mk49.
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
How about we go all in on the Hunter, 2 RAM as well as at least 1 Phalanx. 32 Mk.41 VLS with potentially 128 ESSM, 42 RIM-116 in the RAM launchers, 30mm close in guns and the 127mm. An Echidna on the water with lots of firepower!
Thats not what I want, that is what has been reported , 2 x MK 49 launchers on the Hunters.
I have read it elsewhere, however here is the easy source, and also here is A.Is response

1778639585921.png
 

Attachments

Richo99

Active Member
Thats not what I want, that is what has been reported , 2 x MK 49 launchers on the Hunters.
I have read it elsewhere, however here is the easy source, and also here is A.Is response
If you keep drilling down with AI, it will tell you it has no primary sources, only secondary reports, many of which are contradictory. The three 11 round searam for batch 1 mogamis are all that is confirmed.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This War Zone article displays the USN planned ship building program and the Attack subs at 2 a year for the duration…which puts AUKUS Virginias in heavy doubt. Trump Class Battleships Will Be Nuclear Powered
Is some of the increased production times of the Virginia class as a result of having parts manufactured elsewhere ?it
would get around the legal provision requiring the vessels to be U.S built ,early days yet perhaps more could be done outside the U.S to increase production.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Is some of the increased production times of the Virginia class as a result of having parts manufactured elsewhere ?it
would get around the legal provision requiring the vessels to be U.S built ,early days yet perhaps more could be done outside the U.S to increase production.
There many US military systems that have foreign content, the sub components mentioned in your comment for instance. Several aerial ISR platforms use Bombardier Global 6500 jets. Not sure what the percentage cut-off is on foreign content is but I suspect there must be a limit. Could vary with the type of military kit as well.
 

SamB

Member
Is some of the increased production times of the Virginia class as a result of having parts manufactured elsewhere ?it
would get around the legal provision requiring the vessels to be U.S built ,early days yet perhaps more could be done outside the U.S to increase production.
It's the same old pay and retention issues and SUBSAFE certification. I don't think that foreign suppliers or even automation can replace a skilled workforce and the current lot of SUBSAFE certified crew are aging out. So theirs a 10 year window. 4 years to certify and 6 years to fix pay and retention. After 6 months of remedial work, 12 hour rotating shift work these guys can earn double at a minimum in the private sector and the accommodation, amenities and social aspects around U.S. sub makers suck.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member

-The 2026 National Defence Strategy (released 16 April 2026) re-committed to all six Arafura Class vessels with an additional A$1.0 to A$1.5 billion of funding over 10 years (primarily directed at sustainment), and confirmed an A$25 billion funding envelope for the Henderson Defence Precinct.
-Civmec continues to explore opportunities to engage on additional defence contracts and naval programmes.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member

-The 2026 National Defence Strategy (released 16 April 2026) re-committed to all six Arafura Class vessels with an additional A$1.0 to A$1.5 billion of funding over 10 years (primarily directed at sustainment), and confirmed an A$25 billion funding envelope for the Henderson Defence Precinct.
-Civmec continues to explore opportunities to engage on additional defence contracts and naval programmes.
What about the rumoured funding for additional hulls?
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Australia has ordered the PteroDynamics P4 Transwing VTOL Uncrewed Aerial System for Navy.View attachment 54841View attachment 54842View attachment 54843

Interesting announcement
Interesting aircraft.

Clearly deemed to have benefits over the S100
A lot of nations like the S100!
So await more info.


A least things are moving forward.

Cheers S
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
It's the same old pay and retention issues and SUBSAFE certification. I don't think that foreign suppliers or even automation can replace a skilled workforce and the current lot of SUBSAFE certified crew are aging out. So theirs a 10 year window. 4 years to certify and 6 years to fix pay and retention. After 6 months of remedial work, 12 hour rotating shift work these guys can earn double at a minimum in the private sector and the accommodation, amenities and social aspects around U.S. sub makers suck.
This is the end result of several decades of paying senior financial services staff several times more than senior engineers, scientista and technical people are paid.

The bigest drain of brains from the defence sector in the US, is into the financial sector.
 

SamB

Member
This is the end result of several decades of paying senior financial services staff several times more than senior engineers, scientista and technical people are paid.

The bigest drain of brains from the defence sector in the US, is into the financial sector.
It used to be a common theme with respect to the U.S. military industrial complex, employers whom refused employment union involvement those contract were awarded to those willing to submit. When choosing between what Paul Keating described as knitting together the social fabric or shareholder bottom line the choice is obvious.
 

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
It used to be a common theme with respect to the U.S. military industrial complex, employers whom refused employment union involvement those contract were awarded to those willing to submit. When choosing between what Paul Keating described as knitting together the social fabric or shareholder bottom line the choice is obvious.
Most of the larger companies is are traded publicly on the share market which means that the senior management and directors have a responsibility to the shareholders to return the maximum return on their investment through either dividend payments or an increase in the value of their investment.

The only way around this is to have government owned enterprises, or otherwise privately owned companies getting the contracts.

Even if you have an interested Billionaire involved and willing to make minimal profit on an enterprise, you are relying on them to remain interested, their financial situation to not change, and their heirs or successors to have the same mindset.

Government owned enterprise may be the correct way forward, as long as there is a commitment to maintain funding and capability across both sides of parliament and not let it degrade.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
Interesting announcement
Interesting aircraft.

Clearly deemed to have benefits over the S100
A lot of nations like the S100!
So await more info.


A least things are moving forward.

Cheers S
The RAN had a lot of challenges with the S100 and it was very expensive.

Personaly, my sense is that drone tech is moving so fast you want to go minimum quantity and as low cost as possible for higher value systems like this (as opposed to an FPV drone for example).

The tech solution just gets superceded so quickly.

Regards,

Massive
 
Top