The japanese Are honourable ,people. It will be a matter of honour that if they guarantee to deliver it will be done. Probably worth more than all the ink in Germany.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, and for those with actual knowledge of naval design and construction please provide corrections when/where I get things wrong, but the detailed design phase is something which usually happens after a design has been selected and the contracting started. This I believe is because some of the kit required by a customer might not be known by the designer/vendor, as well as the specific requirements and characteristics for the kit. Such detailed information is unlikely to be gathered by a vendor prior to selection simply because the vendor will not know exactly what to collect. It is one thing to have a CEA radar panel located on the mast of a ship model, it is another thing to know that XXX model radar panel, with a displacement of YYY kg, needs to be located ZZZ metres above the waterline, never mind what the networking, power and cooling requirements might be for the array panel.
I am confident that TKMS could do the detailed design work required to fit CEA panel arrays, as well as other pieces of kit Australia might request or require. What I am much less confident about is TKMS doing such work prior to being awarded a contract due to the time and costs involved, or TKMS (or MHI for that matter) being able to make design changes without it delaying the start and delivery for overseas builds.
As for the iterations of the Mogami-class, these cannot IMO be accurately designed as 'paper' designs at this point, unless one was only referring to a modified Mogami-class fitted with Australian specified kit. At present it appears that eight 'regular' Mogami-class frigates have been commissioned into the JMSDF with four more under construction for delivery between now and 2027. Japan has also ordered the upgraded Mogami-class to be built with work already having started on two vessels. Work that AFAIK would start after the detailed design had essentially been completed.
But that concentration would make the programs easier to cut with changes of government and ministers (the RAN’s biggest risk in my view).
No incoming government/ ministers is going to cancel Henderson shipbuilding because that would put seven or eight electorates at risk in WA (And cause ructions at the state government level). No East coast politician in a major party is going to take up Todjaeger’s advice because they will realise that is not a viable position for their parties. If all military shipbuilding were to be concentrated in SA it would be much easier (in electoral terms) to cut programs (fewer seats and all in one state). it might be inefficient, and it might fail, but at least the current plan seems electorally sustainable.
Yes. Detailed design is quite a way down from contract signature unless you buy something which is completely off the shelf with no design changes whatsoever - right down to the precise placement of a coat hook in a mess deck.
We bought the FFG 7s that way in FMS - and then had to Australianise them. Example -US sailors get their meals on metal trays, ours think that is appalling and want plates and bowls. Which meant we had to rip out the storages, and the cleaning arrangements, for the trays and replace them. Might seem a small, even trivial, change, but it wasn’t.
Last edited:
d-ron84
Member
There was also a massive difference in the US built FFGs compared to Melbourne and Newcastle.
And then there was Darwin, "D" for Different
Strictly speaking, fitting them with NSM would provide a land attack capability, albeit limited range.
My understanding is that the Upgraded Mogami come with strike length VLS, so could take Tomahawk if required. I still think however that 32 VLS is too small for allocating to strike missiles.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Well 32 VLS cells can have a mix of TLAM, SM6 and ESS, especially with the ESS being quad packed. It will all depend on what the expected mission sets for the vessel(s) at any one time.
Don't forget these are GPFs and not expected to take on the approaching armada single handed. It might be that the GPFs will only carry minimal TLAMs unless they are part of a larger task group.
Last edited:
The Upgraded Mogami with its extra length and width can possibly take 2x 20ft containers also(See below) which would give the RAN some more strike or defence options. Japanese are also going with 8x improved Type 12, range 1,000km+ and given the estimated length of the missile, the same space may be able to take 16 x NSM -4 quad launchers, 300km range.
Yep would agree, that kind of mix is possible.
While a GPF is unlikely to be taking on the armada by itself (unless things go horribly wrong), I would think it will often operate independently or as the lead ship for other smaller vessels, such as landing craft or merchant ships). It would do this in less contested regions, but areas where the enemy may be or appear in smaller numbers.
But it might mean that it has to deal with a lone raider, a breakthrough incursion, a sudden air attack from aircraft or a barrage of shore launched missiles. It would need to have the defensive capacity to deal with this at all times. Which remains a lot of missiles. I would have thought that its standard fitout would be a mix of ESSM (say 32 or 64) and SM2 (8 or 16). If it had spare cells for more weapons, I would view it would be better to consider something like the ASROC for submarine defence, like the Japanese do. This would be more useful
It's land strike capability might be opportunistic, or to clear a shore based enemy post to assist a litoral force move, which the NSM would potentially be suitable for. I would be surprised if it is used as a strategic strike platform to launch Tomahawks, and if it does, its contribution would be small.
I kind of think even the Hobarts are too small to use as TLAM platforms, but the defence has a different view on this to me and I am outnumbered.
I think the best place for the TLAMs is either in the new SSNs or in future LOCSVS.
I think the frigates are fine as they are. I think if we go japanese, it is fine for them to be fitted with the japanese are using including the Type 12. But they should be easy to swap out, potentially even having a mixed load out of NSM and Type 12.
If you want more firepower, put them on accompanying drone ships. There is redundancy, flexibility, resilience, greater spacing and depth of the layered defence, distributed lethality in doing that. I think the japanese are quite a ways along with their program. As long as the speed/endurance matches, then we should look hard at those.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I don't know how the US are going with their drone program or low crewed ships. They seem to keep hitting roadblocks.
It's looking more and more like the Japanese have their **** together.
Evolved Mogamis already in the production queue, drone ships well under development as well as a rail gun installed on their test ship (the US dropped theirs), and a new destroyer concept well under development.
A civilian like me can clearly see TKMS aren't in the race as the A200 is undergunned and packed to the gills while the A210 is still on paper.
Unless Blind Freddy is controlling Defence we have to back the Japanese.
If it all goes to **** and we end up in a hot war they'll need our shipyards.
https://www3.nhk.or.jp/news/html/20250709/k10014857911000.html
The first country to import Japanese ships might not be Australia, but the Philippines.
The first country to import Japanese ships might not be Australia, but the Philippines.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I would suggest Japan is getting increasingly worried about the regional security situation. Better to arm up the Philippines with retired destroyers to push back on the PLAN aggression than not.
Re rail gun on test sHip not a lot known on their usages, the TKMS shows the use of a laser on the A210 ,the Mogami class seems heavily designed with mine warfare in mind these two ships seem to have very different capabilities and philosophies in mind
Lasers you say?
Kawasaki - Naval News
Mitsubishi Electric - Defence
This isn't unrelated either. The Abukuma class is being replaced by the mogami. So Japan's prompt building means that 5 of these can be delivered effectively almost immediately. They will probably need a refit, maybe some adjustment but I think Philippines would love to see them.
It's hard to pick these things from the outside.
The mogamis are a here and now ship. With the launch of FFM-11 on the 2nd of July, it means that it now has a yard to start building the new Mogami's, they are real ship in the metal with keels being laid in a hot yard and a order book full. The Mogami build is an impressive case study of maritime construction. The japanese have been very aggressive regarding this program (both domestically and for exports) from the beginning.
The A210, no matter how magical, isn't getting its keel being laid currently. If the program is heavily dependant on delivery timeframes and risk, It would have to seem like the Japanese have a strong position. They are impressive ships from an impressive program.
However, ultimately, with the bulk of them being built here, the local build project will probably be a very important consideration to how that all works. It would be great to see an Australian yard pump out frigates like the Japanese yards do.
Australia selected the Hunter class despite them (t-26) not being in the water so to speak the U.S went for a in the water Fremm over the type 26 the costs of those ships are still rising with added developments
www.twz.com
I'm not in any position to say which ship is the best and hope the best one is selected despite cost ,I would hope that future upgrades to the selected ship re able to be done in Australia using Australian technology and don't complicate supply chains
First Constellation Frigate Only 10% Complete, Design Still Being Finalized
The late and over-budget Constellation class design is still in flux, with only 15% commonality with the frigate it's based on, not 85% as planned.
www.twz.com
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
In terms of 'best' I suspect it really depends on what characteristics gov't deems most important, which could mean which class could be delivered soonest, what class would be overall most capable/multi-role, or which might have the most or most options for Australian content.
As for the issues the USN has encountered with the Constellation-class, that does a rather good job of illustrating just how much can get delayed by changing a vessel's fitout from the base or parent design.
I tend to think that a Japanese overseas build could be delivered to the RAN earlier than a German one, simply because Japan has active yards and supply chains going for the likely offerings whilst TKMS would likely need to establish a supply chain for needed components.
Better or worse?