Too many people seem to think it's like buying a car.
In truth it's more like building a house, or a hospital.
There are things that it has to do that cookie cutter options are not suitable.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
In truth it's more like building a house, or a hospital.
There are things that it has to do that cookie cutter options are not suitable.
There is also the issue of modifications for Ships 7-11. That information was requested and presumably forms some part of the competition.
I don’t think it is correct to say there can be no modifications for Australian health and safety standards. As I understand it, If a noncompliant ship were to be selected and built it could not be taken into RAN service without legislative changes (always possible I guess).
Certification issues is what held up Arafura.
Something can be functionally perfect, but if it doesn't comply to civilian regulations then other, just as onerous processes need to be followed to get a waiver.
Trump wants ally Australia to ‘stand up to China’
My apologies for a paywalled article, however with the Trump administration starting to form up, there is more information on its policy intents coming through. This was an interesting article that provides some early insight.
This summarises a number of comments and interviews with Marco Rubio (secretary of state) and Mike Waltz (national security advisor) particularly around AUKUS. Both are major China hawks, and from their comments, they see AUKUS as a platform that drives their agenda and aligns with their intent for the region. If anything there appears to be a doubling down on AUKUS as a allied model, and for us to commit more rapidly.
Provided we align with their narrative around China (which might have some interesting moments), we do our share of the heavy lifting, and we pay for our own defence, then I think programs such as AUKUS pilllar 1 remain on track and supported.
My apologies for a paywalled article, however with the Trump administration starting to form up, there is more information on its policy intents coming through. This was an interesting article that provides some early insight.
This summarises a number of comments and interviews with Marco Rubio (secretary of state) and Mike Waltz (national security advisor) particularly around AUKUS. Both are major China hawks, and from their comments, they see AUKUS as a platform that drives their agenda and aligns with their intent for the region. If anything there appears to be a doubling down on AUKUS as a allied model, and for us to commit more rapidly.
Provided we align with their narrative around China (which might have some interesting moments), we do our share of the heavy lifting, and we pay for our own defence, then I think programs such as AUKUS pilllar 1 remain on track and supported.
So long as they don't try and get us to buy Constellations .
It will be interesting, there may be pressure to buy additional Virginia's instead of building AUKUS, I hope not.
It will be interesting if the incoming US government decides to keep building Virginia's and Burke's instead of new designs.
The data released indicates that both GPF suppliers were permitted to submit a baseline vessel (mandatory) and an alternative (more tailored to lower priority requirements such as integration with existing systems and alignment with Australian supply chains). If there was a hard line around the "as is" principle then I would view they would not have permitted the alternative to be included in the tender submission (don't ask for what you don't want).
So I would suggest there is wriggle room for the final proposal and what is signed up to. I would suggest that any modification has to be at no risk to schedule and no impact on overall cost. No revolutionary stuff.
Following that logic I don't see it as unreasonable for the final MEKO proposal to be based on our standard fitout, and the Mogami to be based on the upgraded version (several of the media releases have stated "upgraded" in their leaked information).
Furthermore, Japan has been vocal about configuring the upgraded Mogami baseline (their own build) with Australian technology and supply systems. So a proper joint build, with Australia having influence on design for the class. NSM has been a significant one in the news, where the Japanese Mogami will be made compatible.
It would not surprise me if CEA and Mitsubishi formed a JV for radar development and manufacture for instance, and we saw this as the system then employed for the upgraded Mogami for both Japan and Australia.
They have to build Constellations themselves first. Difficult to push a product that is not out of the yard.
I would be of the view Trump will ask us to put more money on the table for US SSN construction (squeeze some more out of us), and push us to commit to five Virginias (American jobs and manufacturing). It's just such an easy place to for him to make a deal, and it aligns with expectations for user pays and buy American principles. This might be what we need to do to ensure ongoing AUKUS commitment.
And note that any procurement and transfer of assets occurs well after the Trump administration finishes.
Last edited:
Recalling another issue with the Hobart's. Because it was an existing design, multiple systems that were no longer compliant to international regulations an treaties were bought for use on the project.
These systems were updated in later Navantia designs, but we selected the earlier F-104.
These systems were updated in later Navantia designs, but we selected the earlier F-104.
Of note for the RAN. I think ten flight decks are of similar size. Gray Eagle STOL Drone Flies From South Korean Amphibious Assault Ship
iambuzzard
Active Member
The Evolved Mogami with 32VLS is starting production and the Japanese have offered it.
Australia does have several bargaining chips when dealing with Trump. First of all there is the $3 billion USD we have promised to pump into their submarine construction industry and then there is the several billion dollars we will be pouring into building facilities for for handling SSNs at HMAS Stirling. Most of those investments are yet to happen and I would hope they won't proceed without first gaining some guarantees from the US. Ultimately the US will make several tens of billions of dollars out of selling submarines to Australia and Trump is first and foremost a business man.
The US also needs to keep its allies happy. Backing out of this deal or changing the conditions would be something that not just Australia but other allies would take note of. Backing out of this deal would also be seen as a potential win for Beijing.
Finally of course it is a decision that will be taken after Trump's administration is done. It is likely that the president that will follow Trump that will have to do the actual signing off on a lot of this stuff.
.
Last edited:
Underway
Active Member
The gov't kicked the RAN out of the project after they asked for a short list of acceptable ships. Are they going to let them back in to negotiate changes? All evidence suggests that the RAN is getting an unmodified design from the builder and will have to adjust to that design, not adjust the design to them.Wrong, that's what some, including some of those in parliament may think and say, but it is not how it works.
The reason it doesn't work like that is because they and their predecessors decided the RAN had to comply to external requirements and processes.
Those external requirements and processes add complexity and design requirements that have nothing whatsoever to do with capability, let alone adding or incorporating existing systems that will improve capability.
I have seen many a principle engineers face turn purple as transverse requirements are explained to them. The best PEs, or in the old days, Chief Engineers, were the ones who understood this and ensured this work was done before steel was cut, not chasing it around at the last minute.
If you doubt me, just look at the Arafuras compared to the Capes or Armidales.
The Arafuras where an established, in service, overseas design, built by an experienced builder (first pair) to a high standard, and yet have suffered serious delays, not because of the build or the combat system integration, but because nobody was paying attention to transverse requirements, because it was an existing design.
The Capes and Armidales have both had serious performance, quality and safety issues, but had a very easy path into service because they were designed and built to class.
None of this was the RANs choosing.
Now we have armchair experts saying we should follow the project model, less the parts that worked, used on a project of concern, on a highly complex GP frigate and it will all be fine?
The more design input you have, the more aligned the designer, builder and operator are, the fewer miscommunications and surprises.
Simple as that.
The problem has never been the integration of different systems, it has always been lack of communication, lack of trust and change adverse decision makers, who lack the required information to make informed decisions.
The delays with the Hobart's weren't due to Australian changes, they were due to an incomplete, out of date design that was being updated by the builder as work was underway. Things improved dramatically when the designer was brought into the project proper instead of being a disinterested contractor.
The problems with FFGUP were because a third party, who was neither the designer or the builder, was selected to do the design and implementation work.
Ever heard of Dunning Kruger?
Dunning-Kruger Effect
The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people wrongly overestimate their knowledge or ability in a specific area. This tends to occur because a lack of self-awareness prevents them from accurately assessing their own skills.www.psychologytoday.com
I'm not saying the decision makers are stupid, I am saying their lack of knowledge, experience and aptitude is leading them to make incorrect decisions with impacts that continue for decades.
This is why we need to look in detail at old projects, not just the headlines and gut feelings. We need to look at what was done, but also what was not done.
There are no simple answers, and anyone who thinks there is, is deluding themselves.
There kinda is IMHO. There are limited options available for an A200 when you look at the catalog. You can pick between three(ish) different guns, two(ish) different CWIS a few different sensors thst will actually fith within the cooling, power and space limits etc... but it's relatively limited what can be integrated and what can't with the baseline. I really like the A200 except for the exhaust issue fogging the stern at low speeds. Tugs and harbour evolutions may be challenging if your breathing in diesel exhaust while trying to work lines.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
WRT Trump, WTF knows what implications his return has for defence, for Australia, the ROTW or the US itself? Does his pick of a former Fox News host inspire confidence????
Edit and N.B. this comment is a reply to post 10804.
Edit and N.B. this comment is a reply to post 10804.
Last edited:
Underway
Active Member
Its not a Mogami 30. It wasn't on the short list. And it's not sailing now. So unless less they change the publicly stated parameters for the selection then I don't think it is competing. Lots of countries offered lots of things, doesn't mean those offers were even looked at (A210 for example was offered last year).
Of course if they changed things I'm fine with that, but I'm not wasting hopium.
Underway
Active Member
I was unaware of the "tailored" build option. Happy to defer to new information.
Don't really understand the CEA infatuation though. Lots of great radars out there. I suppose commonality is important as well as domestic production.
I would even stab that at a later stage another 3 x OZ spec will get built and the first 3 sold off when they are about 10 years old.
iambuzzard
Active Member
That makes sense. It keeps the drumbeat humming . If things go pear shaped we may need replacement vessels. I hope not. I don't know what the N.Z. plans are for their fleet.
Really depends on how quickly we can build them. I would anticipate the first Australian build being delivered in the early to mid 2030s with the last of the class being built around the early 2040s. If the three earlier ships are to be replaced by Australian builds that could push out to the mid-forties. Even that might be optimistic given that Henderson has never built frigates before,
Think you are looking at 2 year drumbeat in both yards. (Maybe 18 months Henderson)
It would be hard to have continuous shipbuilding otherwise with a faster drumbeat.
Eg
2024 - Begin Hunter 1 build (Osborne)
2026 - Begin GPF 1 build (foreign yard)
2029 - GPF 1 (foreign yard)
2029 - Begin GPF 4 build (Henderson)
2031 - GPF 2 (foreign yard)
2033 - GPF 3 (foreign yard)
2034 - Hunter 1 (Osborne)
2035 - GPF 4 (Henderson or from foreign yard if behind schedule)
2036 - Hunter 2 (Osborne)
2037 - GPF 5 (Henderson)
2038 - Hunter 3 (Osborne)
2039 - GPF 6 (Henderson)
2040 - Hunter 4 (Osborne)
2041 - GPF 7 (Henderson)
2042 - Hunter 5 (Osborne)
2043 - GPF 8 (Henderson)
2043 - Hunter 6 (Osborne)
2045 - GPF 9 (Henderson)
2045 - Hobart replacement 1 (Osborne) - build began sometime mid 2030s. (You would think 3-6 will be built)
2047 - GPF 10 (Henderson)
2048 - GPF 11 (Henderson)
-Possible we may see more than 3 built overseas (6 for example would shave about 5-6 years off the timeline)
-Patrol Boats, Landing Craft and LOSVs would be built simultaneously at Henderson.
-Now or in the next few years would be a good time to get AORs built overseas so that follow ons or other larger vessels could be built locally in the 2040s with delivery in the 2050s.
Last edited:
It's been in some of the leaked media releases. But also the last senate estimates, there is a link in one of the above posts to this transcript.
Page 101 talks about what the tender submissions were allowed to include, stating that the participants were able to offer an alternative proposal with the exemplar.
The requirement with the alternative was to demonstrate a high level of maturity for the proposed change, and the reason/value add for it.
There was also a direct question on CEA radars, where the response was that it was up to the tender if they wished to include a CEA radar in the alternative proposal.
In regards to CEA, yes it is one of several good designers of modern gallium nitride AESA style systems. In some areas it would have some valuable and leading edge IP. I think it is well regarded.
There are other good options from elsewhere. The Saab Giraffe for instance is a perfectly good low cost radar that is still capable with our weapon systems and the modern threat environment.
Radars in general and CEA in particular have been identified by the government as core technology to support. So I can't see it not having a centre role in our future military forces. The GPF however may or may not come fitted with it.
In regards to Mitsubishi, I just see good alignment between the two, both have something to offer the other and it would be a valuable strategic tie up between the two governments.
Last edited: