Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[iambuzzard]

Throw those in, and I want my own personal Mogami as well!

You realise you'll have to put up with a 127mm gun! Think you can handle the firepower?

 

[Sandson41]

Looking ahead to potential Hobart class replacements. Everyone has mentioned an evolution of the Hunter Class. What about the Japanese ASEV?
Just an idea for discussion.
Costs as opposed to Evolved Hunter, manpower,etc.?

I seem to recall the ASEV is a one-off class of two using radar sets originally intended for AEGIS Ashore - AN/SPY-7(V)1

I'm not sure ASEV is actually a design intended for future development, or if its just a way of using radars already ordered by Japan.

 

[SammyC]

Looking ahead to potential Hobart class replacements. Everyone has mentioned an evolution of the Hunter Class. What about the Japanese ASEV?
Just an idea for discussion.
Costs as opposed to Evolved Hunter, manpower,etc.?

The ASEV seems a bit overkill for Australia. It makes a Hunter look small in comparison. It would be expensive to operate and require a lot of people.

While I think the spy7 is a good radar, its an orphan in the American world and would be yet another type for Australia to integrate into its logistics system.

Remember Japan selected this system because they had already contracted LM for two Aegis Ashore installations. They later viewed that the fixed sites would be vulnerable to attack, and changed the plan to mount the contracted radar on a ship for mobility and improved survivability.

Had Japan started with a clean sheet of paper, I think they would have utilised a spy6 package and fitted it to an evolved Maya class hull, perhaps with a larger VLS capacity. If they wanted an extra powerful radar, then I'm sure RTX could have upsized the spy6 with more modules than the standard V1 configuration.

For Australia, I would view we either remain with the spy6 family or the ceafar family. Both are capable ballistic missile radars and they align with our knowledge and logistics.

 

[iambuzzard]

The ASEV seems a bit overkill for Australia. It makes a Hunter look small in comparison. It would be expensive to operate and require a lot of people.

While I think the spy7 is a good radar, its an orphan in the American world and would be yet another type for Australia to integrate into its logistics system.

Remember Japan selected this system because they had already contracted LM for two Aegis Ashore installations. They later viewed that the fixed sites would be vulnerable to attack, and changed the plan to mount the contracted radar on a ship for mobility and improved survivability.

Had Japan started with a clean sheet of paper, I think they would have utilised a spy6 package and fitted it to an evolved Maya class hull, perhaps with a larger VLS capacity. If they wanted an extra powerful radar, then I'm sure RTX could have upsized the spy6 with more modules than the standard V1 configuration.

For Australia, I would view we either remain with the spy6 family or the ceafar family. Both are capable ballistic missile radars and they align with our knowledge and logistics.

I'll be interested where we go with the Hobart replacements. Now is the time to start planning and 6 instead of 3 would be the logical way to go.
As you guys have mentioned before, the rule of 3 comes into play. One active, one in refit, and one working up.

 

[Ananda]

Got this photo from online circulation on USS Enterprise and HMAS Melbourne during Rimpac 78. The Photo being call Big E and Little M carrier operations. The light carrier the size of Melbourne now potentially going to increase in population in term of multirole LHD/Light Carrier with the roles of Drone-VSTOL and Commando Carrier.

 

[SammyC]

I'll be interested where we go with the Hobart replacements. Now is the time to start planning and 6 instead of 3 would be the logical way to go.
As you guys have mentioned before, the rule of 3 comes into play. One active, one in refit, and one working up.

I should note that there is currently very little formalised around the Hobart replacement. The national shipbuilding and sustainment plan only provides the following information

• Construction to immediately follow the Hunters at Osborne, so first hull around 2042, indicating construction around 2035; and
• We may work with trusted partners on join learning or codevelopment.

The earlier enhanced lethality surface combatant fleet review also indicated that in order to meet the above timeframes the initial requirements setting and design work will need to commence by mid 2027.

How much has changed since this came out only two years ago.

That is it. Everything else is speculation.

I hope the 2026 NDS provides some further guidance, but I think it will be too soon for further detail.

 

[iambuzzard]

I should note that there is currently very little formalised around the Hobart replacement. The national shipbuilding and sustainment plan only provides the following information

• Construction to immediately follow the Hunters at Osborne, so first hull around 2042, indicating construction around 2035; and
• We may work with trusted partners on join learning or codevelopment.

The earlier enhanced lethality surface combatant fleet review also indicated that in order to meet the above timeframes the initial requirements setting and design work will need to commence by mid 2027.

How much has changed since this came out only two years ago.

That is it. Everything else is speculation.

I hope the 2026 NDS provides some further guidance, but I think it will be too soon for further detail.

Is that starting construction in 2035 and first hull in the water in 2042? Awfully slow. The Japanese take about 3 years. We need to learn from them.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Taylor Brothers have been good for accomodation, very professional operators.

It would be good to give them a chance to fit thing before we start touring around with them. Most things are going to be pretty low risk fitouts with no big integration issues. As spoz and others have mentioned, it is one of the things that is important that probably hasn't been prioritised yet.

Mogami's now have pretty mythical status, there is going to be lots of interest. Having some clever/smart Australian stuff on there utilising the huge interest in the ships should not be under-estimated.

The Japanese are also not opposed to backupgrading their ships if there is something they find neat or innovative. They want to show they are attentive builders and alliance partners. Even if its a bit tokenistic. A cultural exchange.

We tend to be quite good with the Americans with such things, symbolic gestures.. Japan values materials, craftmanship, engineering, tradition... Japan has a bit of a fixation on certain Australian products and produce.

What about the Japanese ASEV?

I'm not sure ASEV is actually a design intended for future development, or if its just a way of using radars already ordered by Japan.

Its a bit of an odd development to solve a problem. The Japanese have other classes in development. We could definitely look at what they come up with. The ASEV is kind of its own thing, we don't really have a need for that particular ship. It isn't really designed to go anywhere, they were originally talking about a ocean platform, like a oil rig or cat hull, towed into place.

Those future dates are quite far into the future, the UK-Japan alliance could be further along by then, as possibly post Sino-American war.. Eyes and ears open. Weapons might change a lot. VLS size may change completely, lasers could be a low risk proven option with multiple suppliers.

 

[rjtjrt]

Average height Male in Japan 171cm, in Australia 177.5cm.
I assume Japanese ships are design of living space based on average heights data.
I always wondered if that had a bearing on decision not to go for Soryu submarine.
Very tight living space very difficult to live with in submarine.