Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[SammyC]

Agree with NSM for the GPFs, either as part of delivery or a later upgrade. My question was would we keep compatibility with the Type 17 (if Mogami) or 700K (if FFX) and be able to operate and use both.

I would it help if missiles are scarce and we need a reload away from home, or if our own missile stock run short

 

[Reptilia]

It's interesting to see what Hanwa is putting out. That's the first public image of a 32 VLS Korean FFX derivitive frigate,and they picked the Australian forum to do it in. It looks to be a Chungnam, slightly stretched, so again an evolution rather than a new design. I assume this will become their FFX IV or V in due course.

My money is still on the "upgraded Mogami" (the Japanese obviously are not spending money on branding) for Sea3000 as it is further along in detailed design, but the Koreans are not going to go out lying down. Also throwing in accelerated production is a further "kitchen sink" approach to their tender response.

Regardless it does highlight that both the Korean and Japanese frigate platforms are moving decisively to compact multirole ASW and AAW formats, rather than just ASW with basic point defence.

Did anybody notice the alternative "foreign customer" mast option offered for the Mogami? Given we are the only serious foriegn contender, is this for us? I would have thought the unicorn coms tower was actually one of the better parts of the Mogami and something we would actually want.

The other factor of note with the Mogami, is the effort to accomodate Australian choice weapons, in particular NSM, seeminly irrespective of the Sea3000 tender. The article indicates that Japan intends to integrate NSM into its own combat system, for its own use. Given they have their own indigenous anti ship strike missile (Type 17), I find this surprising. Maybe it gives them an alternate supply from a future regional manufacturer (assuming we build a production line).

This speaks to a growing trend for missile flexibility. In a hot war world, missile availability becomes scarce. A mitigation is to be able to take any missile, not just your preferred. The PAC3 trials in the Mk41/Aegis system is another recent example.

With this in mind, it will be interesting to see if we look to use this flexibility with Sea3000. Lets say we take the ugraded Mogami, integrated for both NSM and Type 17.

The FFX batch IV is the same size as the Chungnam with just upgrades to equipment and sensors.
Batch V yet to be announced.
On X, the Hanwha Ocean 4300 is set to be larger than both Daegu 122m and possibly Chungnam 129m.
Quite a few visible differences like the mast resembling cea, 32 mk41 cells, bulbous bow.
I’m with you, still think the Mogami offering is the favourite. 90 crew, (30 and 50 less the 2 Korean options, although that could change with FFX IV)

 

[StingrayOZ]

Did anybody notice the alternative "foreign customer" mast option offered for the Mogami? Given we are the only serious foriegn contender, is this for us? I would have thought the unicorn coms tower was actually one of the better parts of the Mogami and something we would actually want.

Probably for Australia as an option. What they are saying is that a different mast could be fitted. There was some concern that the original mast was very highly integrated and would possibly exclude upgrades or Australian preferred radars in the future. I think they are addressing that concern in a real way.

I think its unlikely for the first build ships. But locally built ones, that is something that could be considered and some design work has been done around it.

The Japanese design did have low observability and radar return as a priority, so Australia may prefer greater range and sensor detection, rather than just a reduced signature. Like all things in engineering, its about compromises between different goals. Particularly as Australia's location and waters are very different from Japans, there might be some interest about that in the future, perhaps on local builds, or midlife upgrades.

My money is still on the "upgraded Mogami" (the Japanese obviously are not spending money on branding) for Sea3000 as it is further along in detailed design, but the Koreans are not going to go out lying down. Also throwing in accelerated production is a further "kitchen sink" approach to their tender response.

I would say Japan is still likely the contender getting the most interest. But that isn't to slight the Koreans, they have openly stepped up the challenge. The competition is fierce. From two very capable nations, involving multiple companies. With very capable low risk designs. With very aggressive delivery schedules. Wow, who would have thought the Japanese and Koreans make absolutely fierce competitors? Why didn't we do this earlier!

3 ships by 2029. Jesus. However, the Japanese may be able to match that schedule, I had heard rumors about 2 ships before 2029. But who ever builds it is likely to be building 24/7/365. This project is likely to get major international attention. Its just shifted into high gear. But we are talking about two of the largest and most efficient ship building nations on the planet.

 

[old faithful]

3 ships by 2029.....if we make a decision in the next 12 months or so?

 

[SammyC]

Some good points stingray.

Sea3000 is rapidly becomming a two rather than a four horse race. The Asian yards seem to be leaving the European ones in their dust.

I do like the evolutionary approach Korea has taken with their frigates, pumping out basic but capable early Daegus (and prior Incheons) and then rapidly evolving in batches for more capability. Between these two classes they already have 14 in operation, with two more every year.

Japan is doing the same with their platforms, with similar success.

Seems more successful than the "perfect design" strategy.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Sea3000 is rapidly becomming a two rather than a four horse race. The Asian yards seem to be leaving the European ones in their dust.

Not really that surprising, both the Japanese and the Koreans have been watching Australia and its needs very closely. The Europeans are running this like its a traditional slow Aussie downselect, which it isn't. We need more, and we don't have the time. TBH there probably isn't much money in it either, so their interest is going to be pretty flat straight away, they are company bids, not bids from entire nations. I think Korea and Japan will offer ships at basically cost. The asian offering at a bit high end for a tier 2 european frigate anyway, these are speced more like European destroyers or lead frigates.

TKMS really isn't in that space much anymore, and Navantia is sort of caught between the Avante 2000/3000 and the larger F110/F105. We have shopped there stuff before, the Anzacs is A200, and we built F105 (F104 but with the F105 modifications). Neither really has huge amounts of ultra fast ship building capacity, to throw away on a non-profit build.

I do like the evolutionary approach Korea has taken with their frigates, pumping out basic but capable early Daegus (and prior Incheons) and then rapidly evolving in batches for more capability. Between these two classes they already have 14 in operation, with two more every year.
Japan is doing the same with their platforms, with similar success.
Seems more successful than the "perfect design" strategy.

Yes, it should be an evolution, not just endless clean sheets from no where. Ships are performing the same tasks, with similar weapons. I think sometimes we get way too caught up with game changing, revolutions, which are high risk, high expense, and often our obsession with wunderwaffes, which often have very difficult developments, followed by very difficult IOC/FOC, followed by very difficult mid life phases, followed by very difficult to support end phases. Sometimes they are justified, but often you need reliable safe workhorses.

Obviously it will rare be able to provide peer overmatch to a strong global power by our selves, but if we operate a very effective navy in our region, our big and powerful allies are doing the heavy lifting. We don't operate in a vacuum.

Also we are no longer building a peace time navy. We need to step up now. We don't have 10-15 years grace. TBH I am not sure we ever did.

 

[K.I.]

Probably for Australia as an option. What they are saying is that a different mast could be fitted. There was some concern that the original mast was very highly integrated and would possibly exclude upgrades or Australian preferred radars in the future. I think they are addressing that concern in a real way.

I think its unlikely for the first build ships. But locally built ones, that is something that could be considered and some design work has been done around it.

The Japanese design did have low observability and radar return as a priority, so Australia may prefer greater range and sensor detection, rather than just a reduced signature. Like all things in engineering, its about compromises between different goals. Particularly as Australia's location and waters are very different from Japans, there might be some interest about that in the future, perhaps on local builds, or midlife upgrades.

I would say Japan is still likely the contender getting the most interest. But that isn't to slight the Koreans, they have openly stepped up the challenge. The competition is fierce. From two very capable nations, involving multiple companies. With very capable low risk designs. With very aggressive delivery schedules. Wow, who would have thought the Japanese and Koreans make absolutely fierce competitors? Why didn't we do this earlier!

3 ships by 2029. Jesus. However, the Japanese may be able to match that schedule, I had heard rumors about 2 ships before 2029. But who ever builds it is likely to be building 24/7/365. This project is likely to get major international attention. Its just shifted into high gear. But we are talking about two of the largest and most efficient ship building nations on the planet.

What's the possibility of splitting the order into 6/6 and ordering two different types with potentially 4 or 5 in the water by 2031?

 

[SammyC]

Could do. Pain in the arse to logistically manage though.

I think it comes down to a couple of factors:

• How far away is a potential conflict. The Government would appear to be of the view it is unlikely before the mid 30's. So, while it is urgent, it is not a crisis. Maybe they are wrong maybe they are right, but their intelligence (5 eyes) is better than ours (google).
• How much money is available. Doubling the tempo, doubles the cost, causing some budget problems. The IIR was put together with a set spend cadence in mind. If we spend more, we get fewer hospitals and schools. Or we do without another capability like P8s.
• How fast new equipment can be absorbed. Each new ship needs to have a crew assigned about 18-24 months prior to commissioning, taking a lot of scarce resources out of the system. The current plan has a new ship coming online about every nine months from about 2029/30, which I suspect is about as fast as the Navy could realistically do without starving the existing active ships of people.

The above kind of sets the rate and timing of new equipment, and it would likely be a tight optimisation. I do however like the option of perhaps an additional one or two ships from the same class before the 2029 timeline as this helps retire an extra ANZAC or so a bit earlier. Bringing forward is likely a easier to manage than increasing the tempo.

I would also remind that this double platform strategy was the approach the USN took with the LCS, and I would suggest it remains one of the reasons this project was unsuccessful. It created twice the rate of problems and required two sets of everything to operate.

The other point is this does not enable a local indigenous ship building capability to be established. This is more than a jobs for the boys issue. When war eventually does come we will be on our own and will only be able to use what we already have or can build. And what we have will get destroyed or consumed very quickly. So survival relies on what we can build.

An experienced hot yard able to rapidly spool up an pump out ships at a war tempo takes a lot to set up, taking about a decade to gain the deep workforce and supply chain. The same principle holds for vehicle, ammunition and missile production. Invest in the factories for the future, now.

In time the production capacity will be just as valuable as the platforms themselves. WWII was won in large part because the US could build ships (albeit cheap and nasty ones) faster than Germany and Japan could sink them.

 

[Reptilia]

What's the possibility of splitting the order into 6/6 and ordering two different types with potentially 4 or 5 in the water by 2031?

Prefer Upgraded Mogami from Japan and a few AOR from Korea.

 

[seaspear]

This article goes into what Japanese and South Korean shipyards do differently to American {likely higher automation} and how that may translate into American shipyards ,a question might be is there anything Australian shipyards could learn from those shipyards not withstanding issues of volume of orders

How SECNAV’s claims about S. Korean, Japanese shipbuilders do and do not line up - Breaking Defense

Experts tell Breaking Defense that while Asian shipbuilders have become renowned for good reason, it’s apples and oranges comparing them to the US Navy’s staple prime contractors.

breakingdefense.com

 

[SammyC]

This article goes into what Japanese and South Korean shipyards do differently to American {likely higher automation} and how that may translate into American shipyards ,a question might be is there anything Australian shipyards could learn from those shipyards not withstanding issues of volume of orders

How SECNAV’s claims about S. Korean, Japanese shipbuilders do and do not line up - Breaking Defense

Experts tell Breaking Defense that while Asian shipbuilders have become renowned for good reason, it’s apples and oranges comparing them to the US Navy’s staple prime contractors.

breakingdefense.com

Absolutely. The best option would be the successful yard purchasing Austal, replacing the management and then bringing in their experienced senior staff to run the shops and retrain the teams. The next best option is the successful yard mobilises an experienced team that works side by side with Austal (possibly Civmec as well), but provides frank and fearless advice to the government.

I should put on the table that some of the automation used in the Asean yards is already fitted in both the Civmec and Osborne facilities (auto welders, cutters and the like). The yards are modern. I suspect however, we don't know how to make the best use of the gear and the smarter work practices.

We bought a Pagoni Zonda, but have only ever driven a Toyota Camry.

 

[iambuzzard]

What's the possibility of splitting the order into 6/6 and ordering two different types with potentially 4 or 5 in the water by 2031?

That's an interesting idea. Both options are good and it's hedging our bets. What do the professionals on here think?

 

[iambuzzard]

Could do. Pain in the arse to logistically manage though.

I think it comes down to a couple of factors:

• How far away is a potential conflict. The Government would appear to be of the view it is unlikely before the mid 30's. So, while it is urgent, it is not a crisis. Maybe they are wrong maybe they are right, but their intelligence (5 eyes) is better than ours (google).
• How much money is available. Doubling the tempo, doubles the cost, causing some budget problems. The IIR was put together with a set spend cadence in mind. If we spend more, we get fewer hospitals and schools. Or we do without another capability like P8s.
• How fast new equipment can be absorbed. Each new ship needs to have a crew assigned about 18-24 months prior to commissioning, taking a lot of scarce resources out of the system. The current plan has a new ship coming online about every nine months from about 2029/30, which I suspect is about as fast as the Navy could realistically do without starving the existing active ships of people.

The above kind of sets the rate and timing of new equipment, and it would likely be a tight optimisation. I do however like the option of perhaps an additional one or two ships from the same class before the 2029 timeline as this helps retire an extra ANZAC or two a bit earlier. Bringing forward is likely a easier to manage than increasing the tempo.

I would also remind that this double platform strategy was the approach the USN took with the LCS, and I would suggest it remains one of the reasons this project was unsuccessful. It created twice the rate of problems and required two sets of everything to operate.

The other point is this does not enable a local indigenous ship building capability to be established. This is more than a jobs for the boys issue. When war eventually does come we will be on our own and will only be able to use what we habe or can build. And what we have will get destroyed or consumed very quickly.

An experienced hot yard able to rapidly spool up an pump out ships every six months or less takes a lot to set up, taking about a decade to gain the workforce and supply chain. The same principle holds for vehicle, ammunition and missile production. Invest in the factories for the future.

In time the production capacity will be just as valuable as the platforms themselves. WWII was won in large part because the US could build ships (albeit cheap and nasty ones) faster than Germany and Japan could sink them.

What about a primary contract for the program with the consolation prize being the additional hulls being built overseas. We would take an additional hit financially initially but it will spread our risk and enable us to get more hulls in the water quicker with the the primary contract being the in country build. This will enable us to get our indigenous ship building yards on track. With the optionally crewed vessels hopefully getting sorted out soon it will enable us to get the fleet up to strong levels quicker. We need the combat systems, radars and weapons systems ordered quickly as they have long lead times. We also need planning in place in case this turns into a hot war. Reservists must be trained up to combat efficiency and numbers increased and we would have to look at the possibilty of calling back retired personnel if it goes pear shaped.
The younger generation are generally too selfish and more interested in their social media to want to fight in a war.
I'm 66, have never served, but would fail a physical. These are troubling times. I personally think this will turn hot, and soon.

 

[OldTex]

That's an interesting idea. Both options are good and it's hedging our bets. What do the professionals on here think?

Why complicate the training/manning and through life support for tier 2 combatants. The project budget (being the whole-of-life cost) would be increased by up to 40%. So unless the whole defence budget is increased there would need to be cuts in other projects, potentially even other essential projects.

 

[SammyC]

Hi buzz, not sure what you mean by a primary contract, if you could expand.

Agree with commencing long lead items as soon as possible. Agree with the sheer enormity of the people who need to be recruited and trained to make all this work (the SSN staffng is just a small fraction of the overall Naval program).

Conscription will sort out gen Y and Z. There will be plenty of things for us older folk to do when the time comes (I'm sure I could operate a bullet press or pack rations for instance).

 

[AndyinOz]

Xavier Vavasseur from Naval News having one of his chats with a Rep from HHI about the Chungnam-class / FFX Batch III frigate.

 

[iambuzzard]

Hi buzz, not sure what you mean by a primary contract, if you could expand.

Agree with commencing long lead items as soon as possible. Agree with the sheer enormity of the people who need to be recruited and trained to make all this work (the SSN staffng is just a small fraction of the overall Naval program).

Conscription will sort out gen Y and Z. There will be plenty of things for us older folk to do when the time comes (I'm sure I could operate a bullet press or pack rations for instance).

Sammy, what I mean is that say MHI get the contract to produce 3 hulls in Japan and we produce the rest in Australia. The Koreans get the consolation prize of 3 or 4 hulls produced in their yards, provided of course that Japan and Korea are the preferred options. At the moment they're the strongest looking bids. Politicians and Defence hierachy being what they are it could be the complete opposite when decisions are made. The secondary contract would be basic hulls in the water, possibly with weapons fitted here. The priority would be to get hulls in the water as soon as possible. This could be a hot war sooner than we think. If we get the hulls here the weapons are likely to come from the US such as VLS modules and 127mm guns and missiles (some possibly here) with a lot of the sensors produced locally. In other words, fitting out is done in a potentially safer location.

 

[SammyC]

Ahh, OK. So if the Mogami design is successful, then ask the Koreans if they could build some extra Mogami hulls in their yards. And vice versa. Tell me if I made a mistake. Good idea in theory.

I have a feeling the Koreans and Japanese would rather chew their own arms off than do this. The only reason the Koreans and Japanese have any relationship at the moment is that the Americans make them have one. It would be akin to asking a New South Welshman to drink xxxx beer.

Fitting out hulls in Australia is an option, and we did something similar for the LHDs. I will however note that the most time consuming part of a build is fitting the comms, sensors and weapons (and we are probably the slowest at doing it). Japan actually has licences to build some of the American weapon systems in Japan. Mitsubishi for instance I think is the only place outside the US permitted to make Mk41 VLS units.

Your point on Australia being a safe place to build I think is an unnoticed strength, and a cornerstone of the current strategy. Its the exact same reason the US want to utilise our ports and bases. I would suggest that in a hot conflict our weapons factories and yards would become extremely highly valued. It would not take much for China to bomb the Japanese and Korean yards and any other weapons facility nearby. We could be repairing their ships, possibly making new ones for them, and providing them shells and missiles during a war.

Sadly if the world goes to pot in the next couple of years we are going to war with what we have. Those old ANZACs will need to pull out one more trick.

 

[iambuzzard]

Ahh, OK. So if the Mogami design is successful, then ask the Koreans if they could build some extra Mogami hulls in their yards. And vice versa. Tell me if I made a mistake. Good idea in theory.

I have a feeling the Koreans and Japanese would rather chew their own arms off than do this. The only reason the Koreans and Japanese have any relationship at the moment is that the Americans make them have one. It would be akin to asking a New South Welshman to drink xxxx beer.

Fitting out hulls in Australia is an option, and we did something similar for the LHDs. I will however note that the most time consuming part of a build is fitting the comms, sensors and weapons (and we are probably the slowest at doing it). Japan actually has licences to build some of the American weapon systems in Japan. Mitsubishi for instance I think is the only place outside the US permitted to make Mk41 VLS units.

Your point on Australia being a safe place to build I think is an unnoticed strength, and a cornerstone of the current strategy. Its the exact same reason the US want to utilise our ports and bases. I would suggest that in a hot conflict our weapons factories and yards would become extremely highly valued. It would not take much for China to bomb the Japanese and Korean yards and any other weapons facility nearby. We could be repairing their ships, possibly making new ones for them, and providing them shells and missiles during a war.

Sadly if the world goes to pot in the next couple of years we are going to war with what we have. Those old ANZACs will need to pull out one more trick.

 

[iambuzzard]

Sammy, what I actually meant was getting the Koreans to build 3 or 4 of their hulls, then ship them here for fitting out if necessary. It's better to have extra ships fitting out here than no extra hulls at all.