Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ADMk2]

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…

 

[Reptilia]

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]

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.

 

[iambuzzard]

I believe they could have done this from ship 4 in the originally attend 12 vessel fleet!

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.

 

[Todjaeger]

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]

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…

Austal demands ‘less talking, more doing’ at Henderson

Chief executive Paddy Gregg is frustrated over the slow pace of development on the proposed defence precinct at Henderson, which is being expanded to support naval shipbuilding and US nuclear submarines.

thewest.com.au

Austal CEO opens up on Japan’s concerns on South Korean bid

Paddy Gregg says Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is naturally worried about any risk of a rival gaining access to its technology but insists that Austal’s protocols are strong enough to protect any partnership.

thewest.com.au

Austal chief vows to grill PM over Hanwha decision delay

Paddy Gregg said he intends to ask Anthony Albanese some “blunt questions” about the South Korean company’s bid to up its stake in the Australian shipbuilder.

www.afr.com

 

[SammyC]

3 more paywalled articles out today…

Austal demands ‘less talking, more doing’ at Henderson

Chief executive Paddy Gregg is frustrated over the slow pace of development on the proposed defence precinct at Henderson, which is being expanded to support naval shipbuilding and US nuclear submarines.

thewest.com.au

Austal CEO opens up on Japan’s concerns on South Korean bid

Paddy Gregg says Mitsubishi Heavy Industries is naturally worried about any risk of a rival gaining access to its technology but insists that Austal’s protocols are strong enough to protect any partnership.

thewest.com.au

Austal chief vows to grill PM over Hanwha decision delay

Paddy Gregg said he intends to ask Anthony Albanese some “blunt questions” about the South Korean company’s bid to up its stake in the Australian shipbuilder.

www.afr.com

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.

 

[Pusser01]

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.

Based on the rumours around the BAE yard, they may be exiting control of their yard sometime next year. Whether this means it is subsumed into the AMC precinct or anther operator takes over the running of it, time will tell. Cheers.

 

[Reptilia]

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.

Paddy Gregg-
He warned that if WA didn’t ensure the precinct was developed quicker, SA could snatch the work from the State.
“My biggest concern with this is that if we don’t get on with this as WA, I can guarantee you that South Australia is do everything they possibly they can to get the programs that are scheduled for WA.”
Mr Gregg said he and Premier Roger Cook had had “deep and meaningful” conversations about the threat from South Australia.
“The biggest challenge is not what we need to do in WA, it’s South Australia eating our lunch,” he said.
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.


Thats an odd call on SA, how could they possibly snatch any of this upcoming work?
I can’t see Echoyachts/Echomarine staying put after the government purchase, it’s the only current facility outside of Civmec that could build the LCH undercover. The government cannot wait around for another facility to be built or an existing one to be expanded.

 

[Reptilia]

Plan was
First LCM by 2026 and all 18 by 2032.
First LCH by 2028 and all 8 within 10 years.
First LOSV early 2030s.

Not alot of time so it’s good to see Mr Gregg putting pressure on the government.


ABC interview with Paddy Gregg yesterday.

Could government tardiness cost defence exporter Austal?

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Morgo]

Plan was
First LCM by 2026 and all 18 by 2032.
First LCH by 2028 and all 8 within 10 years.
First LOSV early 2030s.

Not alot of time so it’s good to see Mr Gregg putting pressure on the government.


ABC interview with Paddy Gregg yesterday.

Could government tardiness cost defence exporter Austal?

Follow the latest news headlines from Australia's most trusted source. Read in-depth expert analysis and watch live coverage on ABC News.

www.abc.net.au

“Subsidy sponge complains about not receiving taxpayer dollars fast enough”

The brazenness of Austal and WA more broadly is astounding.

 

[SammyC]

Paddy Gregg-
He warned that if WA didn’t ensure the precinct was developed quicker, SA could snatch the work from the State.
“My biggest concern with this is that if we don’t get on with this as WA, I can guarantee you that South Australia is do everything they possibly they can to get the programs that are scheduled for WA.”
Mr Gregg said he and Premier Roger Cook had had “deep and meaningful” conversations about the threat from South Australia.
“The biggest challenge is not what we need to do in WA, it’s South Australia eating our lunch,” he said.
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.


Thats an odd call on SA, how could they possibly snatch any of this upcoming work?
I can’t see Echoyachts/Echomarine staying put after the government purchase, it’s the only current facility outside of Civmec that could build the LCH undercover. The government cannot wait around for another facility to be built or an existing one to be expanded.

It's an odd line of attack towards SA. I noted Paddy walked back some of the comments he made in The West, in the above ABC video interview. There is no reasonable way that SA could take on the Mogami build with their other work. They are not the threat to Austal.

I know there is however friction between Civmec and Austal, and I think the SA stuff might be a foil for this issue.

It plays out in the media with Civmec making a lot of media noise that they are a better (particularly steel) ship builder than Austal, and you can clearly see the JV for the LCH will be cancelled, with Austal doing it alone. I am aware it plays out behind the scenes as well.

I suspect Civmec are playing hardball on their facility, aiming to maximise their involvement in future programs. Austal want to minimise their stakehold. They sure as hell don't want a partner that can hold them to ransom on labour or rent, nor one that threatens their overall lead and design authority. The Government has ended up having to mediate this, possibly not the position it wanted to find itself in.

Maybe this is to shake this issue out. Austal is fine to work with if you are the client, but it has a reputation for not working well with others as a partner.

 

[SammyC]

Based on the rumours around the BAE yard, they may exiting control of their yard sometime next year. Whether this means it is subsumed into the AMC precinct or anther operator takes over the running of it, time will tell. Cheers.

That's an interesting one. The ANZACs still have an ongoing maintenance requirement and a docking program for the next decade. I know Babcock have the RMP West contract and I assume that freezes BAE out of work.

I had also assumed BAE owned their yard, so not sure how the relinquishing control aspect works. Also not sure how they continue to operate it without the maintenance contract, can't imagine they will be comfortable being a sub contractor to Babcock.

Power moves going on all the way across the Henderson precinct. Starting to look like Game of Thrones. The question is who is "Ned Stark".

 

[Reptilia]

It's an odd line of attack towards SA. I noted Paddy walked back some of the comments he made in The West, in the above ABC video interview. There is no reasonable way that SA could take on the Mogami build with their other work. They are not the threat to Austal.

I know there is however friction between Civmec and Austal, and I think the SA stuff might be a foil for this issue.

It plays out in the media with Civmec making a lot of media noise that they are a better (particularly steel) ship builder than Austal, and you can clearly see the JV for the LCH will be cancelled, with Austal doing it alone. I am aware it plays out behind the scenes as well.

I suspect Civmec are playing hardball on their facility, aiming to maximise their involvement in future programs. Austal want to minimise their stakehold. They sure as hell don't want a partner that can hold them to ransom on labour or rent, nor one that threatens their overall lead and design authority. The Government has ended up having to mediate this, possibly not the position it wanted to find itself in.

Maybe this is to shake this issue out. Austal is fine to work with if you are the client, but it has a reputation for not working well with others as a partner.

Potential?
-CDI has the facilty and workforce for the Upgraded Mogami and it avoids the concerns from the Japanese about IP slippage to Hanwha. With no other work planned, they can begin the build post OPV program.
-The precinct would need much less consolidation and upgrading in the short term.
-Austal still gets multiple programs and decades of work + sustainment, possible consolidation of all current facilities into 1 brand new facility(BAE site?).
-Civmec may gain another facility in the North for its other work.(Austals current site to be demolished?) which would separate north and south(defence)
-Hanwha free to buy a bigger slice of Austals pie, which includes the other 3 overseas yards.

 

[SammyC]

Potential?
-CDI has the facilty and workforce for the Upgraded Mogami and it avoids the concerns from the Japanese about IP slippage to Hanwha. With no other work planned, they can begin the build post OPV program.
-The precinct would need much less consolidation and upgrading in the short term.
-Austal still gets multiple programs and decades of work + sustainment, possible consolidation of all current facilities into 1 brand new facility(BAE site?).
-Civmec may gain another facility in the North for its other work.(Austals current site to be demolished?) which would separate north and south(defence)
-Hanwha free to buy a bigger slice of Austals pie, which includes the other 3 overseas yards.

I can't see the Government switching horses and siding with Civmec over Austal. I think Civmec are however making a claim to do that and making it difficult for the Government. They have significant leverage in the negotiations and using it to their fullest advantage. Hence the delays in announcing the plan for the precinct.

The Government has stated that it wants Austal as the ship building lead, and it would be a major backdown, with I suspect immense polical blowback to unwind. The Coalition would tear the Government apart, with the support of the defence industry base, if they did this.

The Government has built a reputation since the 2024 National Defence Strategy of doing what it says. Say what you like about the suitability of the strategy, the Government has followed it to the letter.

So I would take the view this would only occur if the Government's relationship with Austal completely collapsed, and that has bigger ramifications for the existing patrol and landing craft builds. That's an Armageddon outcome, and if that eventuates then the s**t will well and truly have exited the fan and be on the walls.

For all the commentary on the limitations of Austal's ship building capability, I would think that Civmec, even with their CDI division (which is small and has limited maturity), are an even worse option than Austal for the Mogami build.

 

[Reptilia]

I can't see the Government switching horses and siding with Civmec over Austal. I think Civmec are however making a claim to do that and making it difficult for the Government. They have significant leverage in the negotiations and using it to their fullest advantage. Hence the delays in announcing the plan for the precinct.

The Government has stated that it wants Austal as the ship building lead, and it would be a major backdown, with I suspect immense polical blowback to unwind. The Coalition would tear the Government apart, with the support of the defence industry base, if they did this.

The Government has built a reputation since the 2024 National Defence Strategy of doing what it says. Say what you like about the suitability of the strategy, the Government has followed it to the letter.

So I would take the view this would only occur if the Government's relationship with Austal completely collapsed, and that has bigger ramifications for the existing patrol and landing craft builds. That's an Armageddon outcome, and if that eventuates then the s**t will well and truly have exited the fan and be on the walls.

For all the commentary on the limitations of Austal's ship building capability, I would think that Civmec, even with their CDI division (which is small and has limited maturity), are an even worse option than Austal for the Mogami build.

Austal are the prime for LCM and LCH, the LOSV and Upgraded Mogami program is still TBD.
Both Austal and Civmec are pitching, both have pros n cons. It could be either for the frigate program but it’s a guarantee they will both end up with work.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/Strategic-Shipbuilder-Overview-Fact-Sheet.pdf

‘Subject to performance, capacity and capability maturation, the Strategic Shipbuilder will be considered on a project-by-project basis for the larger, more complex vessels in the future’

Austal may do well with both LCM and LCH but they don’t have the capacity or capability to build a GPF anytime soon. Osborne expansion took 5+ years so a long time before Austal could begin if a similar facility was to be built in wa.

 

[Pusser01]

That's an interesting one. The ANZACs still have an ongoing maintenance requirement and a docking program for the next decade. I know Babcock have the RMP West contract and I assume that freezes BAE out of work.

I had also assumed BAE owned their yard, so not sure how the relinquishing control aspect works. Also not sure how they continue to operate it without the maintenance contract, can't imagine they will be comfortable being a sub contractor to Babcock.

Power moves going on all the way across the Henderson precinct. Starting to look like Game of Thrones. The question is who is "Ned Stark".

My understanding is that BAE had something equivalent to a 99 year lease on the yard, happy to be corrected on that though. At this stage, all dockings going forward are going to be at the AMC utilising the floating dock.

 

[SammyC]

Austal are the prime for LCM and LCH, the LOSV and Upgraded Mogami program is still TBD.
Both Austal and Civmec are pitching, both have pros n cons. It could be either for the frigate program but it’s a guarantee they will both end up with work.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-08/Strategic-Shipbuilder-Overview-Fact-Sheet.pdf

‘Subject to performance, capacity and capability maturation, the Strategic Shipbuilder will be considered on a project-by-project basis for the larger, more complex vessels in the future’

The wording that I've seen in other Government media releases is more akin to ... the agreement will provide the framework for a steady pipeline of projects to be delivered by Austal as long as it continues to perform and meet a range of conditions.

So, my read is that the Government will continue to utilise the strategic shipbuilding agreement with Austal for WA projects, provided Austal doesn't stuff it up.

From other media releases from Austal, they are already in discussions with MHI. I would imagine the Government would not allow that unless they provided consent for the two parties to communicate. Perhaps they are also talking with Civmec, but Civmec have not indicated so.

The main principle on my mind goes back to the 2024 defence strategy and the subsequent naval combatant review. This stated that there was insufficient work to sustain the number of shipbuilders located there and advised a strategy of consolidation. Which was accepted by the Government.

My view is that a two ship builder approach (Austal and Civmec) goes against that original principle. So, I look at it as an "or" rather than an "and" problem.

I also don't discount Austal stuffing it up.