Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[d-ron84]

Better or worse?

Darwin had some USN specific designs, ie Water Deluge for Damage Control, which was good.
Melb and Newc had some modifications after some lessons learnt. back door to the Ops Room (CIC) and other small things like the placement of equipment away from ladder bay handrails, so you didn't keep smacking your knuckles

 

[hauritz]

The US is reportedly considering adding more costs and conditions to the AUKUS deal. This includes a guarantee that those subs will support the US in any conflict with China.

Push for major changes to AUKUS in US: report

www.9news.com.au

 

[MARKMILES77]

The US is reportedly considering adding more costs and conditions to the AUKUS deal. This includes a guarantee that those subs will support the US in any conflict with China.

Push for major changes to AUKUS in US: report

www.9news.com.au

The Age original report:

If we go to war, submarines come too: How US could demand AUKUS changes

Australia is facing the prospect of a Trump administration review demanding it pay more for the $368 billion AUKUS pact – and a guarantee that it supports the US in any conflict.

www.theage.com.au

Potentially 3 new conditions for AUKUS to proceed if Colby gets his way:
1.Pay more than already agreed.
2.Guarantee to use them to support the U.S. in any Taiwan conflict
(Potentially they revert to U.S. control if a Taiwan war breaks out).
3.Increase Defence spending to some U.S. determined level.

All three will be very difficult for an Australian Government to accept.

 

[seaspear]

Will c.e.c be a requirement for the selected Sea300 winner I understand the Japanese Maya class has this but cannot find reference to this on current built Mogami,s

 

[John Fedup]

The Age original report:

If we go to war, submarines come too: How US could demand AUKUS changes

Australia is facing the prospect of a Trump administration review demanding it pay more for the $368 billion AUKUS pact – and a guarantee that it supports the US in any conflict.

www.theage.com.au

Potentially 3 new conditions for AUKUS to proceed if Colby gets his way:
1.Pay more than already agreed.
2.Guarantee to use them to support the U.S. in any Taiwan conflict
(Potentially they revert to U.S. control if a Taiwan war breaks out).
3.Increase Defence spending to some U.S. determined level.

All three will be very difficult for an Australian Government to accept.

A good example on how to enhance export sales to allies....NOT!

 

[SammyC]

Will c.e.c be a requirement for the selected Sea300 winner I understand the Japanese Maya class has this but cannot find reference to this on current built Mogami,s

I don't believe it is fitted to the Mogami.

From my understanding the American CEC, USG-2, is configured to integrate with Aegis, with a second version designed for the E2D aircraft. I'm not aware of it being tailored for any other combat system.

USG-2 also has a dedicated antenna, that I know is not in the Mogami unicorn.

 

[hauritz]

The Age original report:

If we go to war, submarines come too: How US could demand AUKUS changes

Australia is facing the prospect of a Trump administration review demanding it pay more for the $368 billion AUKUS pact – and a guarantee that it supports the US in any conflict.

www.theage.com.au

Potentially 3 new conditions for AUKUS to proceed if Colby gets his way:
1.Pay more than already agreed.
2.Guarantee to use them to support the U.S. in any Taiwan conflict
(Potentially they revert to U.S. control if a Taiwan war breaks out).
3.Increase Defence spending to some U.S. determined level.

All three will be very difficult for an Australian Government to accept.

Not sure if this would affect plans for buying UK boats but if the US deal falls though we will have a big capability gap until new AUKUS subs are available in the 2040s. Both parties have already dismissed conventionally powered submarines as being unsuitable so that does leave us in a predicament.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The Age original report:

If we go to war, submarines come too: How US could demand AUKUS changes

Australia is facing the prospect of a Trump administration review demanding it pay more for the $368 billion AUKUS pact – and a guarantee that it supports the US in any conflict.

www.theage.com.au

Potentially 3 new conditions for AUKUS to proceed if Colby gets his way:
1.Pay more than already agreed.
2.Guarantee to use them to support the U.S. in any Taiwan conflict
(Potentially they revert to U.S. control if a Taiwan war breaks out).
3.Increase Defence spending to some U.S. determined level.

All three will be very difficult for an Australian Government to accept.

Realistically if Australia wants V-boats, SSN-AUKUS and an expanded surface navy - not to mention all the new investment in air and land assets - it's going to require an increase of defence spending above what is currently suggested. 2% of GDP is not going to cut it, it probably means 3% at least.

As for using the submarines in time of war with China, what's the point of having SSNs if they're to be used only if someone tries to invade Australia? You might as well have more, cheaper conventionally-powered submarines. I appreciate that the Australian government doesn't want to paint China as an enemy, but it's painfully obvious that the point of having nuclear-powered submarines is to deter Chinese aggression and if necessary sink Chinese ships a considerable distance away from Australia. A private assurance that the RAN would be helping the USN, JMSDF, etc if Taiwan were attacked would only be what is realistically understood to be the case now.

Also, from the same article.

The Pentagon last week moved to pause weapons deliveries to Ukraine at Colby’s urging, but Trump reversed the move just days later. Foreign policy chaos in the White House has made it difficult for Australian officials to gauge how much impact the undersecretary’s review will have.
One senior Australian official said Colby’s scepticism about selling submarines was not widespread.

“People are mistaking Colby as being the only driver of opinion in the US,” the source said, on condition of anonymity. “He’s an important voice but not the only voice. There are multiple views about AUKUS within the US administration.”

Jennifer Hendrixson White, a former US official who was lead negotiator for the AUKUS legislation in the Senate, also indicated Rubio’s department was caught off guard by Colby’s review, and said the State Department and Congress supported AUKUS. She said leasing rather than selling the submarine was a subject of intense debate when the legislation was passed.

 

[Morgo]

Lasers you say?

Kawasaki - Naval News

Mitsubishi Electric - Defence

https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/releases/2023-10-20/new-agreement-enhance-defence-surveillance-survivability

Pew pew pew!

 

[iambuzzard]

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.

Absolutely! We just have to get management and the workers on the same page. National pride is sadly lacking in this country at the moment.

 

[Salinger]

If China launches a military invasion of Taiwan, Japan will not directly participate in the battle. It is believed that the U.S. will likewise not participate directly in the fighting.
The U.S. will also not participate directly in the local warfare in the Senkaku Islands that is expected to follow the military invasion of Taiwan. Japan will declare a solo combat to prevent the annihilation of the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

If China launches a military invasion of Taiwan, Japan will not directly participate in the battle. It is believed that the U.S. will likewise not participate directly in the fighting.

If the risk of the US getting involved in an invasion of Taiwan is low, there would be no problem for the Australian government to give the US a private assurance it would help out if necessary.

Realistically the chances of US and Japanese direct intervention is significant. If China attacks US and Japanese bases on assumption they will intervene over Taiwan, it will force the issue because neither the US nor Japan can waive away dead and injured service personnel and civilians. Whereas not attacking those bases would give the US and Japan a huge advantage in being able to respond with all their available forces. The CCP is an organisation where paranoia and learning not to trust anyone outside your closest group of associates is how you rise up the ranks, so they're not going to assume neighbouring companies won't get involved.

 

[John Fedup]

If the risk of the US getting involved in an invasion of Taiwan is low, there would be no problem for the Australian government to give the US a private assurance it would help out if necessary.

Realistically the chances of US and Japanese direct intervention is significant. If China attacks US and Japanese bases on assumption they will intervene over Taiwan, it will force the issue because neither the US nor Japan can waive away dead and injured service personnel and civilians. Whereas not attacking those bases would give the US and Japan a huge advantage in being able to respond with all their available forces. The CCP is an organisation where paranoia and learning not to trust anyone outside your closest group of associates is how you rise up the ranks, so they're not going to assume neighbouring companies won't get involved.

I would only add that if Japan, the US, and even SKorea abandon Taiwan, what sort of message message does that send to Asian allies, especially Australia, and NATO? Will they care? There is then the Putin and Kim factors, what sorts of $hit do they want to create to support China if Xi decides to move on Taiwan? That would be where the nuclear genie might get out of the bottle, just my two cents.

 

[hauritz]

Realistically if Australia wants V-boats, SSN-AUKUS and an expanded surface navy - not to mention all the new investment in air and land assets - it's going to require an increase of defence spending above what is currently suggested. 2% of GDP is not going to cut it, it probably means 3% at least.

As for using the submarines in time of war with China, what's the point of having SSNs if they're to be used only if someone tries to invade Australia? You might as well have more, cheaper conventionally-powered submarines. I appreciate that the Australian government doesn't want to paint China as an enemy, but it's painfully obvious that the point of having nuclear-powered submarines is to deter Chinese aggression and if necessary sink Chinese ships a considerable distance away from Australia. A private assurance that the RAN would be helping the USN, JMSDF, etc if Taiwan were attacked would only be what is realistically understood to be the case now.

Also, from the same article.

The Pentagon last week moved to pause weapons deliveries to Ukraine at Colby’s urging, but Trump reversed the move just days later. Foreign policy chaos in the White House has made it difficult for Australian officials to gauge how much impact the undersecretary’s review will have.
One senior Australian official said Colby’s scepticism about selling submarines was not widespread.

“People are mistaking Colby as being the only driver of opinion in the US,” the source said, on condition of anonymity. “He’s an important voice but not the only voice. There are multiple views about AUKUS within the US administration.”

Jennifer Hendrixson White, a former US official who was lead negotiator for the AUKUS legislation in the Senate, also indicated Rubio’s department was caught off guard by Colby’s review, and said the State Department and Congress supported AUKUS. She said leasing rather than selling the submarine was a subject of intense debate when the legislation was passed.

Actually leasing may be a better option for Australia. If we do get a mid-life submarine from the US it means we would need to decommission the thing after only about 15 to 20 years. Leasing means that becomes America’s problem.

As for Australia using its submarines in support of the Americans I have always taken that as a given. Australian territory is being used to host American forces so it is likely to come under attack.

 

[spoz]

I don't believe it is fitted to the Mogami.

From my understanding the American CEC, USG-2, is configured to integrate with Aegis, with a second version designed for the E2D aircraft. I'm not aware of it being tailored for any other combat system.

USG-2 also has a dedicated antenna, that I know is not in the Mogami unicorn.

F-35s too I believe although whether just as shooter or not I don’t know. And, I thought, also being looked at for Wedgetail.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would only add that if Japan, the US, and even SKorea abandon Taiwan, what sort of message message does that send to Asian allies, especially Australia, and NATO? Will they care? There is then the Putin and Kim factors, what sorts of $hit do they want to create to support China if Xi decides to move on Taiwan? That would be where the nuclear genie might get out of the bottle, just my two cents

But its not impossible. Lots of strange messages have been sent to allies.

I don't believe it is fitted to the Mogami.
From my understanding the American CEC, USG-2, is configured to integrate with Aegis, with a second version designed for the E2D aircraft. I'm not aware of it being tailored for any other combat system.

Also it's not really expected to need it. It isn't an air defence ship. It's a frigate focusing on ASW, but strong self defence capabilities while performing that ASW role. It won't be launching SM-3. It's not designed to. Mogami isn't an AEGIS ship. It isn't really designed as a fleet escort. The first batch of mogami only had 16 VLS, and the first five were built not even fitted with that. These ships will be fine for moving about by themselves to straits, like singapore, or Lombok, or out to the pacific or indian oceans doing patrols.

The Japanese have proper destroyers, with 96 VLS. They don't need every ship to try to do everything. If they need more air defence, they build more destroyers. They have 8 large Aegis destroyers and are building more.

These ships are designed to work independently but away from the main front or underneath an existing defence bubble, chasing and securing sealanes from subs. If you try to merge both missions you get Hunter class, which is much bigger, but also carries less missiles, so is compromised and expensive.

If we had six hobarts, we would be in less of situation of trying to turn every ship into a super mega orbital battleship. With only 3, we will only have 1 network capable CEC ship for the time being. So we won't be able to form much of a network anyway by ourselves. So for Australia CEC isn't that useful, yet.

 

[SammyC]

Actually leasing may be a better option for Australia. If we do get a mid-life submarine from the US it means we would need to decommission the thing after only about 15 to 20 years. Leasing means that becomes America’s problem.

As for Australia using its submarines in support of the Americans I have always taken that as a given. Australian territory is being used to host American forces so it is likely to come under attack.

I agree, leasing might be a good outcome for all and we avoid the difficulty of decommissioning nuclear systems before we are fully ready. The lessor still has full operational control of the asset though.

I think there is a way to go with the US AUKUS review and I'm not sure Colby's take on life will be the final outcome. Even if it is, there will be extended discussions/negotiations that will protract this out for ages, possibly into the next administration.

We will eventually agree to speed up the FBW and Henderson SSN facilities, some of which is already in motion. We might even agree to a greater investment in the US SSN construction system, especially if this includes greater access for Austal.

We will never publicly agree to a commitment to fight with the US on anything. This will be a deal breaker if forced and the Americans know it. We will privately reiterate our demonstrated history and stake in the game for SE Asian regional stability.

In the meantime we will continue to train people on Virginias at sea, at Electric Boat and in Hawaii unimpacted. This is the stuff that has to happen now.

 

[Mechguy]

Japanese news stated "It has been revealed that the U.S. aerospace and defense technology company Shield AI's "V-BAT" is being considered as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to be installed on the new Mogami-class (FFM), which will be an improved version of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's FFM. A person related to the MSDF revealed this on July 1."

Does Australian Mogami will follow?

 

[ADMk2]

Japanese news stated "It has been revealed that the U.S. aerospace and defense technology company Shield AI's "V-BAT" is being considered as an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to be installed on the new Mogami-class (FFM), which will be an improved version of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force's FFM. A person related to the MSDF revealed this on July 1."

Does Australian Mogami will follow?

The ADF program to acquire land and maritime tactical UAS has been combined and is now Army led under Project DEF 129. It has delivered the Insitu Integrator UAS for Army so far (24x systems) but the maritime solution has yet to be selected / approved.

I’m sure the V-Bat will be a strong contender, but Australia hasn’t selected Mogami yet, nor have we (publicly) selected our future maritime Tactical UAS.

 

[seaspear]

Is it known if the sensor arrangements of the advanced Mogami is superior or equal to the present arrangement on the Anzacs?

https://www.defence.gov.au/defence-activities/projects/anzac-air-search-radar-replacement

CEAFAR - Radartutorial

www.radartutorial.eu

https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-02/Auditor-General_Report_2022-23_12_PDSS_21.pdf