Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
A lot to consider for Sea3000
On paper the A210 with 32 VLS sounds attractive and more in line with the Japans FFM.
The later is still my preference on a number of levels.
Noticed JB from APDR is quite enthusiastic about the TKMS offer.
Yes he did disclose his recent trip there!!!!!!

Will be interesting as to the final numbers purchased.
Originally it was for between 7 to 11 ships

Appears all the talk now is of 11 vessels.
I reckon that’s an optimistic number.

8 or 9 is my guess

Cheers S
Click to expand...
I would suggest there is equal chance of the class being more than 11. The late run hulls are always the cheapest, and at a crew of 90 they are akin to two Arafuras.

For instance:
  • The world situation deteriorates. Build more tier 2 ships.
  • If the LOCSV proves to be problematic. Build more tier 2 ships.
  • If the Hunter is delayed. Build more tier 2 ships.
  • Want to increase defence expenditure towards 3%. Build more tier 2 ships.
  • Need to prop up the WA economy after the iron ore industry tanks. Build more tier 2 ships.
  • Need to replace the first hulls early because they have faults or are obsolete. Build more tier 2 ships.
It could end up a class of 15 or 18.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
Agree
Regardless of who wins, I’d suspect some flexibility in that manufacturing space.
Ideally we would build all our major combatants, but unfortunately that needed better decisions a decade ago.

Re LCM medium and Heavy, I feel it’s optimistic to see these two builds going to schedule.
This will no doubt have an effect on a domestic SEA 3000 build.

Apologies for the negative comments but this all looks very problematic.

Cheers S
Click to expand...
Certainly some movement going on at Henderson for that to happen…
Looking at Google Earth over the past few years, it shows the movement of Arafura class steel units.
Recent visits to the facility by high profiles show 3 of the 4 Arafura class opvs in various stages of construction.
Disassembly of some of the Silveryachts facility also looks to have happened over the last year.(Only the main hall remains.)
At the North end, a new $11 million dollar facility has recently been approved which will be occupied by Bhagwan Marine.

Civmecs outer bays are approx 30m wide by 185m long, enough room to fit 4 Arafuras(80m x 13m) side by side and back to back. The Damen LST 100 is (100m x 16m) - enough room for only 1 fully assembled and some blocks. Probably will use both left n right bays and potentially use the ex Silveryachts facility too(although it’s only around 85m long).
 

Attachments

Last edited:
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
[QUOTE="Musashi_kenshin, post: 456707, member: 3843]
d) Germany cannot offer the strategic partnership that Japan can, and which Australia needs.
[/QUOTE]

Australia is currently in negotiations with the eu on a defence pact and a free trade agreement.

It's not just germany. Other European countries want a broader deal with australia.. Spain, poland, Norway, Germany are all very interested as are the Dutch, in a wider partnership with australia.

This is big game time, nothing is in isolation. Nothing is simple and nothing is set in stone.

Europe has some massive funds and could place massive orders for many items australia makes. Japan not so much.
 
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
Australia is currently in negotiations with the eu on a defence pact and a free trade agreement.

It's not just germany. Other European countries want a broader deal with australia.. Spain, poland, Norway, Germany are all very interested as are the Dutch, in a wider partnership with australia.
Click to expand...
First, the EU isn't going to sign anything with Australia just because it buys some ships from Germany. The organisation lacks unity, to the point where French tantrums over fish almost derailed a fresh trade deal with the UK. Germany might try to nudge-nudge-wink-wink in Australia's direction that buying German would lead to mega trade with the whole EU, but in reality an arms deal would just lead to shrugs over this side of the world.

Second, in the current circumstances a defence pact with the EU is worth toilet paper as far as Australia is concerned. 20 years ago it would have been of some note, but mainland Europe is now 100% focused on Russia and will be for the next several decades.

If Australia entered into a conflict with China, EU "support" would amount to little more than some strongly worded diplomatic notes and retweets, at best some modest economic sanctions that would change nothing. It would also take just one EU member state to veto any action against China, and there are many countries that would not jepordise their trade with China to help out Australia. The only European nation that is actually willing to commit any resources to the Pacific is the UK, and we're outside the EU now. This is why a security partnership with Japan is far more useful, as they're on the front line as much as Australia is, even more so.
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Musashi_kenshin said:
First, the EU isn't going to sign anything with Australia just because it buys some ships from Germany. The organisation lacks unity, to the point where French tantrums over fish almost derailed a fresh trade deal with the UK. Germany might try to nudge-nudge-wink-wink in Australia's direction that buying German would lead to mega trade with the whole EU, but in reality an arms deal would just lead to shrugs over this side of the world.
Click to expand...
The French...the Quebecois, I am sensing a common problem
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Musashi_kenshin said:
First, the EU isn't going to sign anything with Australia just because it buys some ships from Germany. The organisation lacks unity, to the point where French tantrums over fish almost derailed a fresh trade deal with the UK. Germany might try to nudge-nudge-wink-wink in Australia's direction that buying German would lead to mega trade with the whole EU, but in reality an arms deal would just lead to shrugs over this side of the world.
Click to expand...
Currently the west has a complete shortage of AEW/AWACS capability that is suitable for peer conflicts. Australia is deploying E7 capability to Poland (not germany, not at a US base as before). Australia has 6 aircraft, so we are the largest operator outside of the US of a modern powerful AEW platform in the western world.
Australia did a billion dollar deal with Germany on land vehicles.
Australia has provided more tanks to Ukraine than the US.
There is plenty more munitions and vehicles, ships, etc in play. Many tens of billions.
The trade deal is possibly even more important than the ships. Again, potentially quite significant for Australia.

I am not saying that Japan doesn't have anything to offer, but Europe is also, now, offering more than just ships. However, the ships and wider defence deal are more separate than with the Japanese. Europe is now, in a similar situation as Japan is. In that they too feel very exposed, and now, very motivated. Australia has a lot to offer to Europe today, and in the future.

Ultimately Australia will likely strike deals with both, but where on the spectrum of the relationship will depend on things like the frigate deal.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
My understanding of SEA 3000 is that the initial 3 ships would be built in the country of origin with minimal changes made to the actual design of the vessel. I would assume that the version built in Australia wouldn’t have that limitation.

To my way of thinking this would simply mean the Japanese and Germans would offer whatever baseline design they have available at the time of selection and a fully Australianised version would be built in Australia later on.

If TKMS were to win it wouldn’t surprise me if we had the MEKO A200 built In Germany and the MEKO 210 built in Australia.
 
Last edited:
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
StingrayOZ said:
[QUOTE="Musashi_kenshin, post: 456707, member: 3843]
d) Germany cannot offer the strategic partnership that Japan can, and which Australia needs.
Click to expand...
Australia is currently in negotiations with the eu on a defence pact and a free trade agreement.

It's not just germany. Other European countries want a broader deal with australia.. Spain, poland, Norway, Germany are all very interested as are the Dutch, in a wider partnership with australia.

This is big game time, nothing is in isolation. Nothing is simple and nothing is set in stone.

Europe has some massive funds and could place massive orders for many items australia makes. Japan not so much.
[/QUOTE]
Agree
It’s not just about ship specs
Cheers S
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
InterestedParty said:
Does the EU need unanimity to sign a free trade agreement. I am concerned that the likes of Hungary could prevent anything from happening
Click to expand...
The EU is a bit of misnomer. Here. Its more likely to be a coalition of like minded nations that are important. Germany, Poland, Lithuania, UK, Spain, Dutch, Norway, Finland, Sweden (to a much lower level, Ireland, Italy, Greece, maybe France).. They have significant influence with all other EU member states.

Japan has the advantage that it can decide its own defence and economic policies on the spot.
Australia and the EU have been in trade negotiations for decades now.

But concerns about food, energy and defence crisis have now turned up the dial. Australia being a fairly large, fairly powerful, fairly stable, fairly capable power really changes things.

Europe is worried about the Gulf, choke points, and Australia could be key for Europe projecting power on that side of the canal. We could even see rotation of assets through AU.

If the Russians and the Chinese are both at war with the west, then the west better have a plan for getting along.
 
A

Armchair

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
My understanding of SEA 3000 is that the initial 3 ships would be built in the country of origin with minimal changes made to the actual design of the vessel. I would assume that the version built in Australia wouldn’t have that limitation.

To my way of thinking this would simply mean the Japanese and Germans would offer whatever baseline design they have available at the time of selection and a fully Australianised version would be built in Australia later on.

If TKMS were to win it wouldn’t surprise me if we had the MEKO A200 built In Germany and the MEKO 210 built in Australia.
Click to expand...
Posted much earlier in this thread is an interview with an RAN admiral who said the first six ships will be the base type and ships 7-11 could diverge. That sounds wise to me (But I am unsure if it is current). The local builder will start by building new examples of the version that they can see being built in the foreign yard.
 
AndyinOz

AndyinOz

Member
Armchair said:
Posted much earlier in this thread is an interview with an RAN admiral who said the first six ships will be the base type and ships 7-11 could diverge. That sounds wise to me (But I am unsure if it is current). The local builder will start by building new examples of the version that they can see being built in the foreign yard.
Click to expand...
I believe the interview and the remarks you were referring to were by the Head of Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes from the Defence Leaders Combined Naval Event (CNE) 2024 in Farnborough, UK Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News . Not sure if that plan remains current since it was 12 months or so since that event, one would assume so. It seems prudent to have the first 3 build overseas and then the first 3 of the onshore build being built to the same specification. That perhaps will allow the GOTD and the Navy time enough to maybe consider any variation to the baseline design. The design to have zero changes was made even before the down select to two designs and builders.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
AndyinOz said:
I believe the interview and the remarks you were referring to were by the Head of Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes from the Defence Leaders Combined Naval Event (CNE) 2024 in Farnborough, UK Australian Navy capability head : ‘zero-change’ is right strategy for Tier 2 general purpose frigate - Naval News . Not sure if that plan remains current since it was 12 months or so since that event, one would assume so. It seems prudent to have the first 3 build overseas and then the first 3 of the onshore build being built to the same specification. That perhaps will allow the GOTD and the Navy time enough to maybe consider any variation to the baseline design. The design to have zero changes was made even before the down select to two designs and builders.
Click to expand...
I would like someone to think outside the box and plan for a continuous build after the contracted 11 hulls. With the geopolitical climate they won't be enough, particularly as Sammy C said, there is a delay to the LOCSV. Planning has to start NOW on what comes next, particularly with the Hobart class replacements.
 
Mark_Evans

Mark_Evans

Member
iambuzzard said:
I would like someone to think outside the box and plan for a continuous build after the contracted 11 hulls. With the geopolitical climate they won't be enough, particularly as Sammy C said, there is a delay to the LOCSV. Planning has to start NOW on what comes next, particularly with the Hobart class replacements.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Continuous build on both tier 1 and tier 2 to avoid the valley of death. Ask New Zealand if they would take some of the tier 2 ships.
 
M

MickB

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
Australia is currently in negotiations with the eu on a defence pact and a free trade agreement.

It's not just germany. Other European countries want a broader deal with australia.. Spain, poland, Norway, Germany are all very interested as are the Dutch, in a wider partnership with australia.

This is big game time, nothing is in isolation. Nothing is simple and nothing is set in stone.

Europe has some massive funds and could place massive orders for many items australia makes. Japan not so much.
Click to expand...
Agree
It’s not just about ship specs
Cheers S
[/QUOTE]
One would think that if what Australia had to offer was so important to these nations then the deals would be done with or without a ship purchase from Germany.
This would be even more true from the other countries that were listed here that gain absolutly no benefit from the frigate deal.

I am also in agreement that in the event of conflict in the Asia/pacific region, much of Europe will be noticeably absent.
Leaving us to rely on regional partners.
 
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
InterestedParty said:
Does the EU need unanimity to sign a free trade agreement. I am concerned that the likes of Hungary could prevent anything from happening
Click to expand...
Yes, unanimity is required for a trade agreement or to sign a defence agreement.

I don't know how reliable the "Daily Cargo News" is, but they said a few days ago that the Australia government have walked away from the trade talks with the EU. If that's correct, I think no progress will be made this year. In fact, Australia and the EU may be in indefinite deadlock.

MickB said:
One would think that if what Australia had to offer was so important to these nations then the deals would be done with or without a ship purchase from Germany.

This would be even more true from the other countries that were listed here that gain absolutly no benefit from the frigate deal.

I am also in agreement that in the event of conflict in the Asia/pacific region, much of Europe will be noticeably absent.
Leaving us to rely on regional partners.
Click to expand...
This is the point. European countries are going to sign arms deals with Australia irrespective of whether the Mogami is ordered or not. Australia can pick and choose where it places orders.

StingrayOZ said:
Europe is worried about the Gulf, choke points, and Australia could be key for Europe projecting power on that side of the canal. We could even see rotation of assets through AU.

If the Russians and the Chinese are both at war with the west, then the west better have a plan for getting along.
Click to expand...
Let's not conflate Europe with the EU. The UK is already a friendly nation and is doing what it can in the area - e.g. planned submarine rotation. We don't care if Australia buys MEKO frigates. This is about Germany and the EU.

I appreciate what you're saying, and in an ideal world that might happen. But EU states have no spare assets to rotate through Australia. Security agreements with the EU will only carry diplomatic weight. Germany has a relatively small navy that is only suited to operate around Europe. Most EU states are the same or have even less to offer.

Focusing purely on strategic factors, I think if the Mogami is picked it will show that Australia understands it is largely on its own and needs to forge strong relationships with nations on its back door. If it goes with the A210, it will suggest the government is still somewhat in denial and thinks it can pull in every friendly country in the world to help deal with China. Really, the most the EU can do is cheer from the sidelines.
 
Last edited:
AndyinOz

AndyinOz

Member
iambuzzard said:
I would like someone to think outside the box and plan for a continuous build after the contracted 11 hulls. With the geopolitical climate they won't be enough, particularly as Sammy C said, there is a delay to the LOCSV. Planning has to start NOW on what comes next, particularly with the Hobart class replacements.
Click to expand...
That would be the final piece in the puzzle I think. Not only to develop a plan for a continuous build but in a sense create a culture where that becomes the norm. Yes technologies change, needs change but to have the capacity and the workforce to build out what Navy needs along with the other services, even if in some cases only the supporting infrastructure for whatever capability we have. That way we are not left scrambling or the perception we are because we've kicked the can down the road in favour of other competing funding requirements for governments as they change. Building and expanding our own capacity to innovate, invent and develop in this space would not hurt either. I am unsure as to the future of the LOCSV at this point in history. It seems that some in the USN are also unsure of how the technology fits into the fleet at the moment as well US Navy surface warfare requirements director raises questions about future of LUSVs . “The Large USV has a great purpose, but it has it has walked that path towards exquisite, expensive [and] unpalatable ... I’m sceptical about that landing in the fleet.”.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Musashi_kenshin said:
Yes, unanimity is required for a trade agreement or to sign a defence agreement.

I don't know how reliable the "Daily Cargo News" is, but they said a few days ago that the Australia government have walked away from the trade talks with the EU. If that's correct, I think no progress will be made this year. In fact, Australia and the EU may be in indefinite deadlock.



This is the point. European countries are going to sign arms deals with Australia irrespective of whether the Mogami is ordered or not. Australia can pick and choose where it places orders.



Let's not conflate Europe with the EU. The UK is already a friendly nation and is doing what it can in the area - e.g. planned submarine rotation. We don't care if Australia buys MEKO frigates. This is about Germany and the EU.

I appreciate what you're saying, and in an ideal world that might happen. But EU states have no spare assets to rotate through Australia. Security agreements with the EU will only carry diplomatic weight. Germany has a relatively small navy that is only suited to operate around Europe. Most EU states are the same or have even less to offer.

Focusing purely on strategic factors, I think if the Mogami is picked it will show that Australia understands it is largely on its own and needs to forge strong relationships with nations on its back door. If it goes with the A210, it will suggest the government is still somewhat in denial and thinks it can pull in every friendly country in the world to help deal with China. Really, the most the EU can do is cheer from the sidelines.
Click to expand...
Sadly, politicians tend to lack common sense these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top