iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Too true, John.....and the days before and those to come.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Replace the first 3 ships that might not be exactly as Australia wants after the first 8 AU builds are completed So we have a fleet with commonality. If there is then a surplus of tier 2 and the climate is right Sell or gift the first 3 to NZ.
Last edited:
Why not just get the frigate that suits us best …please?
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Bob, I quite agree. I think that the New-FFM (Mogami) is the best choice. It's a modern design from the ground up, has a lower crew requirement, is well armed and is being built right now.
The objections to it either no longer hold water (Germany is now proposing a theoretical design, so it isn't proven or low-risk), or are nonsensical (they've never exported so can't do it - which means that no one else can ever enter the export market).
On the last point, I didn't see anyone suggest it was risky for countries to order the Type 26 or Type 31 frigates. The fact the UK used to be a huge exporter of naval shipping was completely irrelevant because in the 20 years prior to that all we'd exported were some corvettes, and we certainly hadn't helped set up foreign construction lines for anything as big as what's happening now. If we can make it work, I'm sure the Japanese can.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Part of the issue is what are the benchmarks to determine which frigate would suite the RAN "best".
I tend to think one of the primary factors determining the eventual selection will be based upon will be who can deliver complete, fitted out warships to the RAN first. An all-around more capable warship is likely going to be worth SFA if the first delivery from an overseas build is not until after the Hunter-class frigates start getting delivered. Even more so if the lead SEA 3000 frigate built overseas might not get delivered until after the 2nd Hunter-class frigate delivery.
The powers that be have apparently determined that RAN fleet numbers are too low (duh!) and the fleet needs to be expanded and at the same time the Australian industrial capacity for naval shipbuilding is insufficient to meet the desired numbers and timeframe.
I personally remain highly skeptical of what appears to be the plans behind SEA 3000, as there are so many opportunities for things to get delayed, with each delay pushing back when SEA 3000 frigates would get delivered to the RAN, either from an overseas yard of a new domestic one. I also think it would be more viable if Australian approached this via a different route. Instead of ordering three frigates to be built in an overseas yard, Australia would likely be better off placing a larger overseas order for perhaps five or six frigates, all built to print for whatever design gets selected. Then for the frigates to be built in an Australian yard, have them be built to an Australianized version of whatever design Australia had built overseas.
The Australian yard is unlikely to be ready to start cutting steel for the first domestically built SEA 3000 frigate until some time after the first overseas build has been completed and turned over to Australia, at least if things progress according to the timeline. Since it will still be several years before first steel is cut for that vessel, why not take a little time and fine-tune the design to Australian needs since it would likely be some time still before a new yard could cut first steel.
Time to active service must be a big part of the equation.
What compromises are accepted to achieve that end will be interesting.
Cheers S
Agree, can anyone see all this happening in just 4 years…
2026-2029 - Evolved Cape class PB(58m x 10m) ABF 8* (Built and delivered)
2026-2029 - Landing Craft Medium(50m x 10m) approx 9 of 18 (Built and delivered)
2026-2029 - Arafura OPV(80m x 13m) 4 of 6 (Built and delivered)
2026-2029 - Upgrade Henderson precinct (plan, build and deliver)
2026-2029 - Landing Craft Heavy(100m x 16m) approx 2 of 8 (Built and delivered)
2027> - SRFW ready
2029> - GPF (Cut steel first ship)
Add employ/train 1,000s skilled workers
Last edited:
Oz-Watcher
New Member
Interesting article on breaking defence on Japans bid for the frigate program. Not sure if this had been posted already Japan's government pushes hard to woo Aussies with advanced frigate - Breaking Defense
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
Thanks for sharing, I don't think it had been posted before.
The command and control centre of the Mogami (and new-FFM) is easily ignored. I believe it's revolutionary at least as far as Australia, Japan, NATO and similar countries are concerned in terms of layout. Same with the smart devices all crew members wear.
I don't know how heavily armoured that part of a frigate would normally be, but it supports my position that the Mogami classes are modern from the ground up. They're not just old designs with extra missiles bolted on cough-cough-MEKO.
Uncertainty and delays loom over West Australian naval shipyard project
The above ABC article does not instill confidence, with a construction contract for the landing craft medium still yet to be finalised. The article indicates that there is already a mediator between the parties (Birdon, Austal and Defence) and potential delays of up to 2 years are on the cards.
I'm really not sure what Birdon can bring to the table for this project. My personal view is that they should have left Austal with their preferred design partner BMT, rather than the shot gun wedding with Birdon. I think this is playing out as a problem now.
More broadly I find it excessively complex with the number of designers involved, Birdon for the mediums, Damen for the heavies, and an orphin Luerson team for the remaining OPVs, with somebody different for the GPFs and inevitably another designer eventually for the LOCSVs. Looks like Hanwa will become a significant part owner of Austal as well. Combine that with Austal and Civmec also being forced into an arrangement for construction and project management. It's no wonder that it is proving difficult to establish contractual and harmonious working relations between the miriad of parties involved.
My take is that the landing craft medium, landing craft heavy and remaining OPVs are all going to be messy builds with lots of mistakes, delays, inefficiencies and extra costs. I would hope by the end of it however, the key parties being Austal and Civmec have been blooded through brute force trauma into being modern ship builders.
I feel that at some point there is going to be a road to damascus moment. I kind of think the Government needs to seriously consider purchasing the Australian business from Austal and nationalising it like they did with ASC several decades ago. They also need to speed up procuring the Civmec and Silveryachts facilities and merge all of these entities together. Eventually there needs to be some rationalisation of parent designers. Pick one company and consolidate with them.
I personally view that the Osborne team have figured it out very well, with ASC providing the labour, BAE the intelectual property and leadership, and ANI managing the infrastructure. Having learnt this the hard way in Osborne, I don't understand why it hasn't been applied to Henderson.
I feel we have an inbuilt drive to relearn every lesson the hard way over an over again.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Yes, it doesn’t read in a logical manner - also Henderson has been moved to a location North of Perth according to that article.