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.
UK deployments have been notoriously patchy. In peace time.
Australia isn’t just an additional rotation point. It's a strategic location for projecting power. The real interest here is in Europe, not in Australia itself.
Australia doesn't need that kind of protection. The focus is on shared interests, not safeguarding Australia’s sovereignty. China isn’t going to invade Australia—such an action is both impossible and pointless.
If Europe lacks enough assets to secure the flow of oil through the Suez, they may as well give up now. The major shift happening is that the US is pulling out of the Middle East, which means there won’t be a consistent military presence there or in Europe. As a result, countries like Iran, Israel, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen will become Europe’s responsibility. These nations could severely impact Europe’s energy, food supply, and economic trade.
I don’t believe the EU is seriously looking for a trade deal or a deep defense agreement with Australia. What they want is reliable food supply and defense capabilities, without putting in the work to secure them. That’s fine, but if the US and Australia continue to pull back from the EU and the Middle East, the EU will have to pick up the slack. I’m skeptical about their ability to do so effectively, especially without the US’s support and military might.
The EU has shown time and time again that it’s not cohesive. They may make deals with smaller states on defense, but trade and economic policies are often blocked. Many EU states would rather exploit opportunities to sell to Australia than build a genuine partnership. The EU can be more transactional than even Trump’s administration. Past defense deals, like with the C27, Tigers, NH90, and Mirages, have shown that Australia often gets burned.
Australia doesn’t need to rely on Europe for trade. It’s easier to trade with countries like Indonesia, India, Southeast Asia, and the wider Pacific. That market is bigger than the EU. We've been locked out of much of Europe for over 60 years and are still doing well. We have unique exports—like minerals, coal, and gas—that make absurd EU tariffs and quotas ineffective.
The EU imports oil from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, the US, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, and Azerbaijan. If the US goes to war with China, or if Russia is fully engaged in a conflict with Europe, the EU’s access to these resources could be jeopardized. Some allies might act to ensure those resources can’t be sold to anyone.
But I don’t think it’s that simple. Australia is not "on its own"—it leads its region. While Australia isn't directly under threat, the real power struggle is happening far to the north. Sydney is as far away from it as London is, but unlike London, we don’t have Russia between us.
Australia’s concerns are more about the post-conflict world—what will the global landscape look like after a US-China conflict, or a Europe-Russia conflict? The answer isn't promising.Australia is looking to attract companies to relocate out of countries under threat (like Europe or Northeast Asia) to Australia, to serve as a reliable second supply chain. Japan and Korea are already interested in this.
Europe, on the other hand, seems to think it doesn’t face the same risks. Much of Europe’s defense industry is built on pork-barrel projects, which is why many countries don’t care if the equipment doesn’t work, lacks spare parts, or is ineffective. Australia’s experiences with the C27, Tigers, NH90, Mirages, and issues with Spain over ships are clear examples of this. Our recent experiences with the UK and France have also not lived up to expectations.
We want to diversify our supply chain beyond just the US, but historically, Europe hasn’t been kind to Australia in defense. A few projects have gone well—mainly German ones like the Leopard and Anzac—but by and large, Europe has been unreliable.
The Japanese, however, understand the stakes. They know they’ll likely lose factories and entire supply chains. Given Japan’s shrinking population, manufacturing might not need to happen on their soil. Instead, they could partner with one trusted ally, and Australia is by far their best option.
Australia and Japan could work together to secure the supply chain between them, especially with the Americans, though their reliability is uncertain going forward.
Last edited:
Correct, the new US government has significantly changed the perspective for the rest of the western world.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the EU was the one that rebooted the free trade deal negotiations with Australia at the recent G7 and has been rumbling about a security pact for a while too.
I'll note in my observations of the Australian defence industry there's now a big push in developing equipment without ITAR restrictions.
EU/Japan/SK, etc now see the high priority need to improve and strengthen their relationships outside the US sphere, this includes Australia too. So we're definitely going to see a lot more collaboration and partnerships on projects regardless of who wins the GPF contract.
I'm not sure there is a clear answer to that. However, US tariffs impact Europe far more than Australia. US disruption to trade impact EU more than Australia.
It was certainly reported as such locally.
‘Incredible boost’: Europe touts prospect of breakthrough on elusive trade pact
The EU ambassador to Australia has signalled that Europe is open to compromise on the use of names such as prosecco and feta by Australian producers.
Australia wasn't just locked out of Europe. It was locked out of North America. Our free trade deal with the US was so absurd, that it actually caused trade between the two nations to drop.
Im not sure Europe and Australia are in the same mind. Europe seems to think we are desperate to strike a deal. I think Japan has closer world view to Australia.. Maybe we are just checking our options before we sign up.
Its a hard question to answer.
If its just based on the platform, IMO, Japan has it, just. Bigger, more capable, some more bold design moves, that are now low risk. Japan probably has slight edge in production timelines, and seems happy to give Australia what ever it wants. Not only that. Japan is familiar with Aegis and integrates that with its fleet. Its uses more us weapons, or weapons based on interfacing US weapon systems.
The platform and the economic stuff are also not 100% tied.. Many though with the land stuff, who ever won might win all types, and the German production order didn't collapse when the germans only won one item.
My point was just let it be selected without political considerations.
I have noticed that people who love AI don't tend to have very high levels of expertise in the concepts being discussed.
It's a bit like Dunning Kruger, the people with the least capacity and least knowledge assume they know the most, and are in turn influenced by confidence over content.
I’ve never heard of tank armour being used on a ship…certainly hear of armoured sections but using tank armour?? would that mean it’s protected from anything other than a direct penetrator hit? I read elsewhere that the CIC has data and power cable routing redundancy for the same systems along up to 6 routes up again using armoured conduit.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
From my POV it appears that political considerations are writ large in the SEA 3000 project and quite possibly to the overall detriment of the CoA.
Consider for a moment the notion of a new shipyard being established to produce eight modern frigates for the RAN...