Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[Morgo]

The British MOD released an RFI in September regarding Nuclear powered surface ships.

If the power requirements for Type 83 are high enough to justify nuclear propulsion that is likely going to one very big and very expensive ship.

It’s way too early to look at Type 83 or DDX as options for the Hobart replacement. Luckily they are young ships and a decision doesn’t have to be made right now.

Good Lord.

Do you have a link?

So in the 2040s it’s not inconceivable we’ll be replacing the Hobart class with nuclear powered Type 83s that’ll cruise at 30+ knots and be covered in frickin’ lasers.

That’s a lot of waste heat they’ll have to deal with.

Would certainly make the investment in the skills to install and run PWR3s for the SSNs more viable.

My 10 year old self would be giddy at the thought of the above.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

We (the UK) don't have the budget for nuclear-powered cruisers or destroyers. The RFI was a very odd development, and has been generally seen to be a request for information made out of curiosity than because it's actually something the Royal Navy or MoD thinks is viable.

 

[Bevan]

As far as I am aware, the Mogami FFM was short-listed, and the FFM is the evolved Mogami with 32 cells.

Yes I know it's Wikipedia, but if you scroll down to export....

Mogami-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is a link that states the FFM is short-listed.

Australia shortlists designs for A$11bn general purpose frigate contract

Australia has reportedly shortlisted two warship designs for the navy’s A$11bn ($7.24bn) general purpose frigate (GPF) contract.

www.naval-technology.com

.

If you scroll a little further down your Wikipedia link you posted, you will see under Ships in Class that JS Mogami has hull number FFM-1. Everything Ive read suggests FFM is the designation for the original Mogami, whereas New FFM refers to the upgraded Mogami.

 

[John Fedup]

When the USN was thinking about new large cruisers (same timeframe as Zumwalt destroyers) nuclear propulsion was evaluated and deemed unnecessary and too expensive but new developments should be monitored. NP for naval ships does have advantages if a country is dependent on imported oil via ocean tankers which are vulnerable to an ever increasing submarine threat. Nevertheless, an extremely expensive solution.

 

[Reptilia]

Micro-Reactor

We’re developing a versatile next-generation nuclear Micro-Reactor technology solution that can be deployed safely, affordably and at pace.

www.rolls-royce.com

 

[SammyC]

Enough time to determine the viability of LOSVs with Hobart replacement planning late 2020s and build beginning mid 2030s?
-Not even the United States will be able to determine LOSVs full capability by decades end.

Type 83 makes more sense as the tier 1 Hobart replacement, larger mast, very large missile load with mission bay still available, space for DEWs/system, space for ‘growth’ VLS and integration of hypersonics, min 1 LOSV as a picket ship but multiple possible.
Probably can’t fit all of these capabilities on a Hunter hull.

I get your point, but I was thinking more based off the American program. Their budget forecasts having about half a dozen first generation LOSVs before 2030. These are not prototypes, but in service craft (so actual missile carrying vessels attached to destroyers or frigates). Admittedly this program has been delayed by about 2 years from first ship in 2025 to now 2027.

Vanguard, the latest of the prototypes went into service in about May, and from what I have read there is a further two prototypes for release in 2025. It's attached to fleet units for more rigourous testing, hopefully some of this might be made public next year.

I would have thought there should be sufficient information over the next couple of years to assess the viability of the unmanned craft. I should note key enablers, such as remote firing, containerised VLS and basic autonomous navigation are already functional concepts.

That aside, even if it remains as a staffed vessel, I think it still stacks up as a cheaper, more flexible and more survivable strategy.

In regards to the T83. I honestly can't see the UK being able to afford an entirely new hull design. I would view it being a modified T45 or T26 at best. It might get a larger propulsion pack (say for a T26 a second turbine), and a larger generation capacity for future electrical weapons.

I would also view the Brits would likely extend the existing T45s for another 10 years, as they are getting some expensive upgrades through to about 2032. This means they would also delay any design work on a replacement and it would unlikely align with when we need to commence work.

So we would pick a Japanese design, perhaps the American DDX, or stick with our own platforms and evolve them for our Hobarts. Maybe they might get extended into the 2040s as well.

 

[Maranoa]

Is it just me that thinks Sea 3000 is a disaster in the making.

 

[hauritz]

Speculation is that the election will be called late January or early February 2025 as that time line suits the incumbent government better strategically.

Just this minute got a text from the AEC (Australian Electoral Commission) informing me that I should confirm my enrolment details, so I guess an election might be sooner rather than later. In theory they don't need to call an election before September next year.

One concern wrt the GPF program is whether this will result in an inadequate number of Tier 1 combatants.

For example, are we building enough Hunters and is a 1:1 replacement of the Hobarts sufficient.

Would a better balanced fleet be to build 8 GPF, increase the Hunter build to 8, and then participate in the 13 ddx (expected to have a lot of the automation features of the Mogami) program for a class of 8.

Not about the precise numbers, more the balance across classes.

Thoughts?

Massive

I generally take these numbers with a substancial pinch of salt. Australia really has four ship types it has under consideration. The Hunter, GPF, LOCSV and Air Defence Destroyer. Of those only the Hunter isn't vaporware. The final ship numbers we get could be very different to what is currently planned.

I would have thought there will always be more of the simpler platform. Its bulk, with low staffing for cheap cost. For what its worth, if we go with the evolved Mogami, then I would suggest this is closer to a Tier 1.5 on our scale than a Tier 2.

If we need more of something, then this is the easiest platform to accelerate numbers of type.

I would view that the eventual Hobart replacement is tied to the success or otherwise of the LOCSV concept. If this works then I don't see a need for a dedicated 100 cell AAW vessel. A Hunter with two LOCSVs would have the same capability, probably more because it wouldn't sacrifice any of its current capabilities with drones. Possibly even an upgraded Mogami with some LOCSVs in tow would perform a similar function.

If the LOCSV works, then I would see a continuation of the Hunter class to nine, same standard as the first six, upgrade of the GPFs to have virtual Aegis, and then a lot more LOCSVs, say 12, 18 or 24.

I have a personal view that the big missile battery destroyers time in the sun is waning, and like the battleship, it's reducing in effectiveness. The distributed platform is taking over.

Tend to agree on the that the day of the big, expensive and vulnerable warship may be coming to an end. There will probably be a lot more than 6 LOCSVs built in the end. We will see lots of UUVs as well. You can buy a large number of unmanned vessels for the price of a single Destroyer, frigate or even SSN.