Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Armchair]

I agree hauritz, I don't get how the Navantia bid works under the no design changes, because by its very nature it needs to change. Unless they are offering the corvette A2200 design rather than the A3000.

And, if they get a free card to offer a modified design, why don't the others.

The free card for Navantia (if it exists) might be as simple as they are the people who have the recent history of building ships for the RAN (with RAN systems) and have been touting their capacity to build more ships for the RAN for years, and even established an alliance with the government’s strategic shipbuilding partner before there was a competition.

If the other designs are not viable then ALFA3000 might do a Bradbury and come through as a winner.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don’t think that is an apt description of the process.

Its very hard to one sentence what is going on. But uniforms are way more back seat in this process. We should not expect a normal procurement process, and large amounts of Australian priorities to be included. Or a design to meet normal RAN priorities.

“The only thing we’ve been approved to [change] is if it’s in a different language,” Head of Navy Capability, Rear Admiral Stephen Hughes, told the Senate on 28 June.

Any other changes, he said, will require the project team to first go back to the Defence Committee – which is chaired by the Secretary of Defence - and then seek the approval of the National Security Committee of Cabinet (NSC).

So changing the colour of the paint would require approval of both the secretary of defence and the NSC. Not going to happen. Because changing the colour of the paint would require retendering, acquisition, could delay the project or costs. But we are getting signage in English.

The overall Sea 3000 project is still in its early phases with the initial ATM yet to formally close. When it does, according to testimony by Defence officials in Senate Estimates, Defence will begin a process to determine which tenders are viable before moving forward to a down select later this year.

“We need to prove which are viable and which are non-viable, and the viable ones would then be put to government for a decision,” First Assistant Secretary Lutz said.

OTOH, if the VL MICA is fitted well above the waterline (which it might be, if the physical space required by the VLS is small and since the missiles themselves are only ~112 kg each) then trying to replace it with a Mk 41 would trigger topweight issues like the ANZAC-class frigates experienced.

I don't think we are getting Meko.

I expect the Germans and the Spanish to be identified as non-viable. There is not an ongoing hot production line with orders being completed. They may have some sort of lifeline saying, that if the situation was to change, they could be viable, but currently not as the order run is completed and new ships are not likely to be delivered in time. I also think the RAN doesn't really want a corvette from Spain with no ASW, or a German Meko with a weird Egypt fitout. Both had to be considered as Spain was making a lot of noise, and people always liked the german gear. Navantia and TKMS can hold their heads up high, they weren't selected simply because of the timeframe and lacking current ongoing orders. It won't hurt future business.

I am 98% confident, that we are getting the new FFM. 1% that it will be the older Mogami, and 1% that Korea or the project will be cancelled/transformed as very distant but anything is possible options. The reason for FFM is that the existing Mogami is basically wound up as a project, while FFM is signing contracts right now, and can explore additional options and giving already contracted ships to transfer to Australia. Its hot. An existing mogami would be a whole new project. Risk in this case, is starting a whole new orphaned project from scratch, in Japan and having that program compete for resources with Japans own FFM program. That is never going to happen. Japan would pull the entire offer.

Imagine NZ wanting to buy another Anzac build, right now, but at the Osborne yard, built by ASC/BAE, getting delivery by 2029. It would never, ever happen, for dozens of reasons. No matter, how "low risk" and "proven" the Anzac hull is, it isn't going to be built. The project would be high risk and extremely unproven and certain for disaster. Its not about platforms in isolation, its about projects.

I know in the forums and in the media Australia treats its military procurement like a sports team, or a horse race. We pick something personally we like, then we speculate and talk about it for months. I know it engaging, its dramatic, it sells papers, it drives clicks. A competition, a race is always attention grabbing. This isn't that. Japan has been waiting decades for this opportunity. From reports, Japan is just blowing everyone out of the water and knocking it out of the park. The biggest ship, the most capability in every aspect, the most aggressive pricing, the most ambitious schedule, the most planned local support plans, the most national government support. Mitsubishi isn't building this, Japan is.

The working goal, ADM understands, is for a contract to be signed in early 2025 ahead of the federal election, which must be held by May of that year. This would be followed by a brief period of detailed design before construction commences in 2026 for delivery of the first vessel to the RAN in 2029.

There is talk about Japan supplying perhaps two vessels before 2029. Again, knocking it out of the park. Japans build is so aggressive, because they aren't just making a statement to TKMS, Navantia, Korea, they are making a statement to China. They are going to be building ships like their nation depends on it. They are serious about building an Australian supply chain, because they want to scale the bejesus out of it and with Japans declining population that is hard.

I hope the decision makers are looking at best value for money and lowest risk through a lens of knowing who the best operators are. We would be stupid not to engage SAAB, CAE and other proven partners on this. The more talent and experienced eyes we have worked with before, the lower the risk of working with a new designer

Well the future doesn't have to be dark. One could imagine a future where Saab, CEA, and others are all launching joint Japan/AU projects to grow the ships for the future. Saab consoles, sensor fusion, CEA, Thales/NEC sonar, etc. Possibly even bringing in other AUKUS partners. If we do build FFM, then cutting out the old radar and just slotting in our own monster and filling the hull with concrete ballast won't be a thing. We will have to work in partnership with Japan to develop a solution. TBH that is probably a better way forward. Things are more integrated now.

But also this is likely to not be government facilitated. Japanese suppliers will be directed to pair up with an Australian. If anyone in Australia works in those industries, my advice would be make a Japanese friend.

The local build program is likely to be very interesting, I think it will be very different from what people think.

 

[ADMk2]

I don’t think that is an apt description of the process.
The ADM article says
*******
ADM understands that once the down select is made, the program is expected to relax its aversion to transparency to an extent and move forward - as a normal RAN acquisition program.
*****

Project Sea 3000: What we know - Australian Defence Magazine

The Royal Australian Navy’s new general purpose frigate program – Project Sea 3000 – is something of an oddity as it’s the government, not Defence or the RAN, that’s in the driving seat | Ben Felton

www.australiandefence.com.au

(edit to include original link for quoted material)

I’ll believe that, when I see it…

The contract values of the Switchblade 300 being acquired through FMS for example, are ‘sensitive’ apparently, even though they are required by US law to be announced in US FMS contract announcements...

 

[swerve]

...
I am 98% confident, that we are getting the new FFM. 1% that it will be the older Mogami, and 1% that Korea or the project will be cancelled/transformed as very distant but anything is possible options. The reason for FFM is that the existing Mogami is basically wound up as a project, while FFM is signing contracts right now, and can explore additional options and giving already contracted ships to transfer to Australia. Its hot. An existing mogami would be a whole new project. Risk in this case, is starting a whole new orphaned project from scratch, in Japan and having that program compete for resources with Japans own FFM program. That is never going to happen. Japan would pull the entire offer.
...

There is talk about Japan supplying perhaps two vessels before 2029. Again, knocking it out of the park. Japans build is so aggressive, because they aren't just making a statement to TKMS, Navantia, Korea, they are making a statement to China. They are going to be building ships like their nation depends on it. They are serious about building an Australian supply chain, because they want to scale the bejesus out of it and with Japans declining population that is hard.

The Mogami project is still running, out of 12 ships, 6 have been commissioned (1 last month), 3 launched, & 1 laid down. The last one's expected to be delivered in 2028 - & it hasn't been laid down yet.

The Italians smoothly handed over two new FREMMs to Egypt & tacked replacements on to the end of the production run at a later stage in the project. The two new ships are both afloat now, & scheduled to be commissioned next year. Why can't the Japanese do the same?

 

[StingrayOZ]

The Mogami project is still running, out of 12 ships, 6 have been commissioned (1 last month), 3 launched, & 1 laid down. The last one's expected to be delivered in 2028 - & it hasn't been laid down yet.

Its possible. I just think Unlikely. Again, systems etc have already been procured and the pipeline for construction winding down. I don't see why everything would bend backwards to get us the last of a class that is basically complete. Refer to 4th Hobart, or buying an Astute etc.

The Italians smoothly handed over two new FREMMs to Egypt & tacked replacements on to the end of the production run at a later stage in the project. The two new ships are both afloat now, & scheduled to be commissioned next year. Why can't the Japanese do the same?

That was in the middle of a production run, Egypt currently operates 3 ships (laid down in 2009,2015,2018). Italy is still building four more and when the first ship was transferred there were many more (2010,2011,2012,2013, 2014,2015,2021,2021,2025,2026). Italy specifically contracted them in small batches, for specific purposes. Hot and in action line. I am not sure the Mogami batch 1 is in the same situation. They offered it to Australia and Indonesia, no bites, that offering to Indonesia was ~3 years ago. They are winding down a project, and may have specifically, slowed the build so to bridge between the batch 1 and batch 2 ships. Because racing to finish the work would be a poor idea, one we often do here in Australia. We trash our industry to get the ship to the Navy, to our own detriment of our industry and our navy.

Its possible. But if the intention is to build some ships locally. It would seem easier to slip into and lock step with the Japanese. Not try to fight them.
Maybe they transfer an existing ship, but I also think that is unlikely. Much more likely they delay decommissioning of their existing older ships than give us something that is already commissioned, or in the final stages of commissioning.

Japan Could Deliver 8 Cutting-Edge Frigates to Indonesia

If it eventuates, the $3.6 billion deal would represent the largest-ever arms transfer between the two nations.

thediplomat.com

I really think we will be fitting in with Japans plans, rather than Australia telling Japan what we want. From the outside, it is very hard to tell where they are at, and where they are best able to meet Australia's immediate need for overseas built ships and local build ships and supporting the industry and logistics of that. An existing class may not be the ideal candidate.

Of course with a local build, there is way more flexibility, perhaps. But I don't think it will run that way either. I think the local builds will very much mirror the Japanese build. I think we are looking at a different procurement model and approach in terms of priorities and relationships.

Again, nothing is known for sure. Speculation for sure. But I hoping a discussion around these aspects help people understand why perhaps a particular option was selected, why perhaps we aren't getting 9lv/ceafar, why that may not be the huge issue it first may appear, why perhaps such a solution was preferred over something else.

 

[Reptilia]

The Mogami project is still running, out of 12 ships, 6 have been commissioned (1 last month), 3 launched, & 1 laid down. The last one's expected to be delivered in 2028 - & it hasn't been laid down yet.

The Italians smoothly handed over two new FREMMs to Egypt & tacked replacements on to the end of the production run at a later stage in the project. The two new ships are both afloat now, & scheduled to be commissioned next year. Why can't the Japanese do the same?

1-1.5 year gap between steel cutting for Mogami frigates 11 and 12(both commissioned in 2028) and steel cutting for ship No1 for Australia in 2026.
Steel cutting for new FFM starts end of this year or early next for 2028 delivery.

Japan to build 3 Mogamis again after 3-4 new FFM are under construction?
Might be better just to get 1 new FFM off the production line and 1 more every 2 years. The problem is that new FFM will not exist prior to ordering but the government may simply call it a batch II Mogami in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

 

[SammyC]

The Mogami project is still running, out of 12 ships, 6 have been commissioned (1 last month), 3 launched, & 1 laid down. The last one's expected to be delivered in 2028 - & it hasn't been laid down yet.

The Italians smoothly handed over two new FREMMs to Egypt & tacked replacements on to the end of the production run at a later stage in the project. The two new ships are both afloat now, & scheduled to be commissioned next year. Why can't the Japanese do the same?

I think one thing to remember is that construction supply chains are often several years in advance of the hull fabrication. Long lead items are often ordered upwards of five years beforehand. In considering if a production is hot or cold, it is more useful to review the supply chain, rather than the yard.

In the case of the Mogamis, while the hulls may still be coming off the production line, the long lead materials will either be coming to an end, or retooling for modified designs for the new FFM.

There would be some analogy to asking Toyota (lets say Mazda because I am a zoom zoom fan) to produce last year's model on this year's production line. It can be messy.

I will also note the new FFM is an evolution of the Mogami, not a new design. There is far more difference between the Navantia A2200 and their intended A3000/Tasman design.

For example, the radar will still be produced by Mitsubishi and it will be a derivation of the OPY2 on the Mogami, perhaps with an additional S band borrowed from one of the other Japanese Navy platforms that is already in service.

 

[BSKS]

Navantia Australia website says the "AVANTE 2200 design, which has been adapted to meet the requirements of the RSNF [is] now known in the company’s portfolio as the Alpha 3000" so looks like the recently built Saudi vessels are Alpha 3000's.

These were built in Bahia de Cadiz in Spain before final fit-out in Saudi with five vessels constructed between 2020 and 2024. Depending on further orders for the shipyard they are probably well placed to deliver 3 vessels to Aus by 2030.

One further advantage for Navantia is their recent experience with in country builds. There always seems to be a rough start and lessons learned when a new player builds in Australia as Navantia themselves experienced with the AWD build and then again Leurssen with Arafura. Might we expect a similar "adjustment" period for the other GP frigate proponents new to Australia?

The Alpha 3000 is the smallest option and potentially most constrained and additionally Navantia have not done themselves any favors with the Supply class woes, however, they still have advantages and are a known quantity. Given vessels 7 - 11 will be evolved versions, a pivot to more capable designs such as Alpha 5000 could also be a possibility.

 

[Reptilia]

The Avante 2200(Patrol) design is 99m known as the Guaiquerí class patrol boat - Venezuela.
The lengthened Avante 2200(Combatant) is 104m known as the Al Jubail class corvette - Saudi Arabia.
The Alfa 3000 design is based off the Avante 2200(Combatant) and is 104m.
The lengthened Alfa 3000 design known as the ‘Tasman class corvette’ is 109m was the one aimed at Australia.

The other options and its potential future successor or modified design.
Alfa 3000/Tasman - 109m > Alfa 5000 121m
MEKO A200 - 121m > MEKO A210 127m
Daegu FFX II - 122m > Chungnam FFX III - 129m > FFX IV 129m
Mogami - 133m > FFM 142m

 

[Volkodav]

I should point out that the issues we have had with Navantia and Lurssen were of a different magnitude to those encountered with TKMS (or the predecessor) on the ANZACs, with the US on the FFGs or even with Kockums on the Collins. There were however similar issues with France on the Success, but not with the UK on the Tobruk, DEs, Darings, Battles or proceeding designs.

 

[SammyC]

Australian trailblazers become first to complete intense Royal Navy nuclear course

I came across this while having my afternoon coffee. Here is another milestone, with the first three specialist nuclear engineer officers qualified through the RN. By the looks of things they are now scheduled for some exciting sea time on the Astute class SSNs.

This is an important step, and as this is training that the USN system is not so equipped to provide (specialist engineering officer), it is a valuable compliment to the larger USN training program.

The RN training system has had less publicity than its USN counterpart, so it is nice to see some of its achievements.

We now have people in the RN and USN plus the civilian maintenance systems. It gives some confidence that we may achieve the ambitious goals set to train and expand the submarine corp.

 

[Swifty87]

Any update on SEA3000 GPF submissions?

 

[76mmGuns]

Australian trailblazers become first to complete intense Royal Navy nuclear course

I came across this while having my afternoon coffee. Here is another milestone, with the first three specialist nuclear engineer officers qualified through the RN. By the looks of things they are now scheduled for some exciting sea time on the Astute class SSNs.

This is an important step, and as this is training that the USN system is not so equipped to provide (specialist engineering officer), it is a valuable compliment to the larger USN training program.

The RN training system has had less publicity than its USN counterpart, so it is nice to see some of its achievements.

We now have people in the RN and USN plus the civilian maintenance systems. It gives some confidence that we may achieve the ambitious goals set to train and expand the submarine corp.

I'm quite impressed with the AUKUS training. There's only solid news showing ground level progress. While people complain about delays in this and that, training for RAN personnel has been going at breakneck speed. It's as if the moment they announced AUKUS, tptb told RAN- choose several people to go to the USN and several to go to the UK for nuclear training, and tell them they're leaving tomorrow..... and they did. Honestly think Australia will be far better prepared for the nuclear subs than many might expect

 

[MickB]

I'm quite impressed with the AUKUS training. There's only solid news showing ground level progress. While people complain about delays in this and that, training for RAN personnel has been going at breakneck speed. It's as if the moment they announced AUKUS, tptb told RAN- choose several people to go to the USN and several to go to the UK for nuclear training, and tell them they're leaving tomorrow..... and they did. Honestly think Australia will be far better prepared for the nuclear subs than many might expect

Reported that Lt Isabella topped the course.
Now posted to an Astute.

 

[Massive]

FFM and establishing a partnership with Mitsubishi HI/Mitsui could work well should the 13DDX be a suitable AWD replacement.

Regards,

Massive

 

[Alberto32]

Japan's MoD Unveils New Image of ASEV - Naval News, seeing as there's interest in the FFM frigates, what's your take on this type of destroyer, and would it be suitable for Australia? Possibly a replacement or a evolved version of the Hobart class vessels.

 

[seaspear]

The ASEV as pictured show a Lockheed Martin SPY-7 how would this compare to present plans for upgrading to Aegis baseline 9 , certainly the unmanned LUSV,S look interesting

Royal Australian Navy Explores Autonomy and Optional Crewing: Eyes LUSV as Potential LOSV Solution - Second Line of Defense

By Gregor Ferguson The Australian Department of Defence’s response to the Royal Australian Navy surface fleet review, Enhanced Lethality Surface Combatant Fleet, published in February, announced the RAN would field six Large Optionally Manned Surface Vessels (LOSVs) from the 2030s to carry...

sldinfo.com

 

[SammyC]

Japan's MoD Unveils New Image of ASEV - Naval News, seeing as there's interest in the FFM frigates, what's your take on this type of destroyer, and would it be suitable for Australia? Possibly a replacement or a evolved version of the Hobart class vessels.

The Japanese proposed ASEV is a bit of a beast from hell. There is not a lot of design information out on them, however they are planning for them to be in the water in the FY28/29 period. They will also repurpose the lockheed Martin SPY7 radars originally bought for the now cancelled Aegis Ashore project. So they will primarily be BMD platforms.

I should note the USN is going with the Raytheon SPY6 on their new ships, so the SPY7 is a bit of an orphan. Its also different to the SPY7 planned for the Canadian and Spanish navies (which are smaller fits).

My gut tells me the ASEVs will end up being modified (larger) Maya class destroyers, which in turn are based on the Kongo class, which are themselves a Burke derivitive. I doubt they have time to design a totally new platform if they want to meet the above delivery schedule.

The Japanese are very progressive on automation, and have done wonders with the Mogamis, however the Kongo/Mayas are the opposite with crews in the 300 people range. It will be interesting to see if they plan to transfer some of this automation technology to the ASEV.

My take is that they are an unlikely choice for the Hobart replacement as they are too big, too expensive and possibly overkill for our needs.

There are two diverging strategies for tier 1 AA/strike/BMD platforms. At one end is the ASEV and Type 55 from China. These epitomise the go big, everything on a single hull concept. They are starting to look like modernised battleships.

At the other end is the distributed system concept. Multiple smaller platforms linked together to form a large combined capability. Hunters paired with LOCSVs fit this concept. The Americans will likely do the same with their Burkes and Constellations.

The end capability of either option is largely the same, but with different strengths/weaknesses. Which strategy ultimately wins out is unknown, and different Navys need different things. Each strategy has its acolytes and detractors.

My view is that Australia has picked the distributed strategy and will continue this theme. It is dependent on the LOCSV principle working, but if it does it offers considerably more flexibility and redundancy over a single ship. If expanded (several LOCSVs per mother ship) then there is no reason it can't field as many or more missiles than the single battleship style.

My money is on additional Hunter hulls to replace the Hobarts. Probably no different to the ones we are building now.

 

[Going Boeing]

My money is on additional Hunter hulls to replace the Hobarts. Probably no different to the ones we are building now.

Yes, I thought that BAES Australia was very quiet when the Hunter order was reduced from 9 to 6. It could possibly be that they have been assured that the 3 additional ships will be built in an AAW version rather than in Hunter configuration.

Ideally, those 3 would be additional Tier 1’s with a subsequent batch of 3 being replacements for the Hobart class AWD’s.

 

[StevoJH]

My money is on additional Hunter hulls to replace the Hobarts. Probably no different to the ones we are building now.

It will be interesting to see what the RN end up with for Type 83.

If that ends up being built on an evolved Type 26 hull, it would have to be in the running to replace the Hobart class.

And its supposed to enter service from the late 2030's so timing wise it could work, especially if the Australian Government can convince the RN to use a CEA radar.

Its interesting the two different ways western AAW ships seem to be configured with their sensors. The European ships mostly seem to go for a phased array (either fixed or rotating), with a separate long range volume search radar.

While the ships using Aegis derived systems seem to mostly just have a single large multiple panel AESA for both volume search and tracking.