Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[old faithful]

Sammy, I am a blues supporter, and I always drink xxxx beer, everyone I drink, is one less for a stinking Queenslander!
As for getting the Koreans to build FMM if it should be selected, good idea, but won't happen.
I don't mind the idea of a split buy though, say 5 FFM and 5 or 6 Chungnams, that idea has some merit for sure.
At the moment, I think the best way to fill the Navy gap, would be to lease another 12 -24 super hornets and buy another MRTT and 2 more P8s. That could help cover the Navy gap until 2035.

 

[76mmGuns]

I like the idea of getting both SK and Jp to build our ships, but i suspect it's unlikely. An example of this is with the F35 jets. Maintenance hubs will be in Japan and Australia. I think South Korea announced they'd be sending their F35s to Australia for maintenance rather than to Japan. See no reason why the naval build would be any different.

PS: SK will be getting their F35 hub is 2027 afaik.

 

[Lolcake]

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.

Never going to happen due to IP.

 

[John Fedup]

I like the idea of getting both SK and Jp to build our ships, but i suspect it's unlikely. An example of this is with the F35 jets. Maintenance hubs will be in Japan and Australia. I think South Korea announced they'd be sending their F35s to Australia for maintenance rather than to Japan. See no reason why the naval build would be any different.

PS: SK will be getting their F35 hub is 2027 afaik.

If the geopolitical situation really does go to $hit, it is in both Japan and SKorea’s to have significant assets in Australia. The US already appreciates this.

There is some ugly history wrt Japan and Korea but hopefully the threat posed by China and NKorea along with increasing Russian BS can put this aside. If either falters, the other is in deep do-do! Then there is the Trump factor…hardly reassuring!!

 

[spoz]

There is active dislike, at least in South Korea. A few years ago I asked one of their generals what they would do after North Korea had been sorted out. He smiled, and said “Well, then there is Japan” - and he was half serious. And, if you talked to the ordinary Korean, that was a very prevalent view. There is a lot of history there.

 

[John Fedup]

There is active dislike, at least in South Korea. A few years ago I asked one of their generals what they would do after North Korea had been sorted out. He smiled, and said “Well, then there is Japan” - and he was half serious. And, if you talked to the ordinary Korean, that was a very prevalent view. There is a lot of history there.

Very true, and understandable. However the $hit show in the North is a serious threat to SK and Japan. China will certainly let Kim off his leash if stuff hits the fan and neither can count on the US 100% to have their backs. Both are likely planning on A-bomb production.

 

[Bob53]

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 would be too much common sense. Get the ships faster and work with 2 great allies. Instead decision will no doubt be get ships lower and disappoint one of them..in the case of STH Korea ..again.

 

[Bob53]

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.

Not really… these will probably be a lot cheaper that Oz built so an accelerated build …say 2 each built off shore, then we build one here and the other builds take place off shore at the desired fiscal pace And allows us to manage retirements with out any gaps. The logistics difference would only be on the actual ship…99% of the military systems would be that same. You could probably specify same engines etc. I like the idea. It’s 2 classes of 5-6 ships but we already run a class of 3 and 2 and 1… Hobart, Canberras and choules…..

 

[Bob53]

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.

40% …why?

 

[iambuzzard]

To clarify what I said to Sammy. If we choose the 30FFM Upgraded Mogami with 3 built in Japan and up to 8 here and 3 or 4 of the upgraded FFX Batch IV built in Korea will that facilitate retirement of the Anzacs without a reduction in the fleet size, and possibly a quicker increase?
What are the financial implications of acquiring the extra hulls on the budget, keeping in mind the overseas builds will be way cheaper and quicker and is it achievable considering current and projected personnel levels?
The same principle could apply if it goes the other way, keeping in mind that manning levels on the Mogami is lower than on the FFX.
I think the concensus is that the other options are out of the mix and slower to implement.
It all depends on whether there's enough common sense in Canberra to make the right strategic decision and not a purely political one.

 

[76mmGuns]

That would be too much common sense. Get the ships faster and work with 2 great allies. Instead decision will no doubt be get ships lower and disappoint one of them..in the case of STH Korea ..again.

We've disappointed both, so both will be ready for the disappointment of the unreliable Aust Govt. France, Japan, SK...we're very consistent in the last 8 years , lol

I wonder how badly our industry and logistics would be affected if we decided to accept both SK and JP's offers, , build say 6 frigates each, so that 4 will be built in SK/JP(2 each) and 8 built in Aust? we'd be better off upfront in terms of replacing the Anzacs, but later on? with 2 lines building frigates, instead of 1, would we have the personnel for it?

 

[iambuzzard]

We've disappointed both, so both will be ready for the disappointment of the unreliable Aust Govt. France, Japan, SK...we're very consistent in the last 8 years , lol

I hope not this time. If our worst fears come to fruition the wrong decision will cost a lot of lives.

 

[Armchair]

To clarify what I said to Sammy. If we choose the 30FFM Upgraded Mogami with 3 built in Japan and up to 8 here and 3 or 4 of the upgraded FFX Batch IV built in Korea will that facilitate retirement of the Anzacs without a reduction in the fleet size, and possibly a quicker increase?
What are the financial implications of acquiring the extra hulls on the budget, keeping in mind the overseas builds will be way cheaper and quicker and is it achievable considering current and projected personnel levels?
The same principle could apply if it goes the other way, keeping in mind that manning levels on the Mogami is lower than on the FFX.
I think the concensus is that the other options are out of the mix and slower to implement.
It all depends on whether there's enough common sense in Canberra to make the right strategic decision and not a purely political one.

The ship procurement schedule that we will hopefully see this year is based on acquiring one class of 11 GPF to replace (in crew terms) one class of FFH (also saving crew on OPVs). According to the Chief of Navy there are enough personnel in the current plans to crew the planned acquisitions until the 2040s (If all goes well).

The financial implications of acquiring 3-4 hulls of a second different class (with additional new systems and a shorter total run of 3-4 as opposed to 11) from a different builder are probably reasonably large but they would be utterly dwarfed by the cost of raising and training crews (who could only come from the Hunter crew pipleline) and sustaining those additional vessels. In other words, even if a Japanese or Korean builder handed the RAN the ships for free they would be extremely expensive (and practically impossible) to operate.

 

[Todjaeger]

That would be too much common sense. Get the ships faster and work with 2 great allies. Instead decision will no doubt be get ships lower and disappoint one of them..in the case of STH Korea ..again.

I disagree about it being common sense, in fact I would consider the proposition to effectively the opposite of that. An Oz/S. Korea build, or an Oz/Japan build makes some sense. Attempting to arrange an Oz/Japan/S. Korea build is going to create problems and increase costs, and this is also assuming that it can be made to happen.

The only way that I could foresee yards in both S. Korea and Japan building a common naval design for use by Australia, would be if Australia commissioned the design (or created it domestically) including obtaining the rights for the design IP. A Japanese design built in S. Korea I just do not see as realistically possible, and a S. Korean design built in Japan even less so.

Then there is the little matter of how many vessels one is actually talking about. The SEA 3000 is for up to 11 GP frigates. If the numbers ordered from overseas yards is increased, then it means even fewer built in Oz, which would then raise even more questions about any attempt to get another Australian yard established for domestic naval construction, and then the need to sustain the yards with an ongoing stream of work.

 

[iambuzzard]

Thanks for the replies, guys.
Of course if everything goes to **** then all bets are off and we grab whatever we can. Here's hoping if we have to up the drumbeat with the local building we don't get the unions going on strike.

 

[MickB]

I disagree about it being common sense, in fact I would consider the proposition to effectively the opposite of that. An Oz/S. Korea build, or an Oz/Japan build makes some sense. Attempting to arrange an Oz/Japan/S. Korea build is going to create problems and increase costs, and this is also assuming that it can be made to happen.

The only way that I could foresee yards in both S. Korea and Japan building a common naval design for use by Australia, would be if Australia commissioned the design (or created it domestically) including obtaining the rights for the design IP. A Japanese design built in S. Korea I just do not see as realistically possible, and a S. Korean design built in Japan even less so.

Then there is the little matter of how many vessels one is actually talking about. The SEA 3000 is for up to 11 GP frigates. If the numbers ordered from overseas yards is increased, then it means even fewer built in Oz, which would then raise even more questions about any attempt to get another Australian yard established for domestic naval construction, and then the need to sustain the yards with an ongoing stream of work.

I agree that by rushing the build numbers with additional hulls built overseas at such a rate you will create another valley of death for the Henderson shipyards.

While I also agree that retiring the Anzacs asap is a good thing the number of ships the RAN can crew in total is finite.
If there is a combined number of 6 to 10 frigates built overseas what is left for Henderson to build?

If we sell all warships on at 18 to 20 years with no midlife upgrade that is enough ongoing work to maintain both shipyards.
Tier 1 in SA and tier 2 in WA. Than add in AORs , possible JSS , PBs and amphibs and you have a created a soverign sustainable shipbuilding industry.

 

[OldTex]

40% …why?

In the scenario being proposed (5 - 6 vessels each from 2 completely different countries and shipbuilders) you end up having to run 2 completely separate supply chains, with corresponding smaller populations of parts. This results in a smaller population of parts over which to distribute the originators profit. Also there is the increased administrative cost from running 2 separate sustainment processes.
Also to migrate to a common supply chain would require each of the shipbuilders as the Design Authority to give their approval of each Australian sourced replacement part. This would not be a quick and easy process dealing with 2 separate entities (it is hard enough even dealing with a single DA).
Then there is the need for 2 separate training streams, plus the separate manning management issues that would arise. All of which have costs that add up over the life of the platforms.

 

[Reptilia]

Upgraded Mogami(Larger more capable Mogami)
Or
Ocean 4300(Cross between FFX II propulsion, FFX III size and Thai frigate combat system and weapons + extra VLS)

Preference?

"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

Japanese builder MHI redesignates the Mogami FFG successor as "Upgraded Mogami", seemingly positioning the design for Australian contract.

www.navalnews.com

Hanwha Ocean FFX Batch II, Ocean 4300 Frigate Shown In Perth

Korean builder Hanwha showed three frigate designs including FFX Batch II and the new Ocean 4300 at IODS 2024, targeting Australian SEA 3000.

www.navalnews.com

 

[StevoJH]

I would argue that the money is there, as is the capacity to increase training berths to expand the number of technical sailors.

There is even the ability to significantly expand the head count of the navy by changes to the recruitment system.

What there is not at a government level, is the willingness to reduce spending in other area(s) of the budget, or to reverse tax cuts in order to pay for it. Most likely because either they think it will cost them the election next year, or they think the threat is far enough in the future that it will be someone else's problem (or a bit of both).

 

[Lolcake]

Mogami crew requirement is hard to look past. That and a hot production line gives it my nod.