Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[MARKMILES77]

Few Naval Tidbits from the Budget papers.
Expenditure on the SSNs has already exceeded $7.3 Billion.
$16.9 Billion has been committed for Naval Guided weapons of which only $3 Billion has been spent so far.

https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2026-05/Part-3-2026-27-Defence-PB-Statements-Appendices.pdf

 

[Stampede]

Full ESSM integration is already underway on Mogami and a few hints have speculated even existing Mogami (fitted with VLS of course) may already have the ability to employ the weapon. We have also seen Japanese requests for industry to supply NSM integration and as listed in the article below it seems we are running with the Mk.54 torpedo though I have seen anything more official on this point. Interesting RAN has chosen MU-90 for Hunter and ANZAC but Mk.54 for Hobart and now this? Might suggest American assistance with not just the torpedoes but the launchers and perhaps combat systems on the ship themselves?

Upgraded Mogami At Indopac - On Zero Change And Shipbuilding

Government and industry officials provide new information on changes for RAN Upgraded Mogami. Meanwhile Civmec touts frigate-building skills.

www.navalnews.com

In any case, I have little concern about the Japanese ability to integrate ESSM onto these faster than we would… Particularly as Japan herself is already an ESSM user… I feel confident in saying ESSM will be ready to go on RAN’s Mogamis, long before RAN herself actually is…

Raytheon wins contract for the local production of ESSM Block 2 in Japan - Naval News

Raytheon, an RTX business, has been awarded a $250 million contract from Japan’s Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (MELCO) for ESSM Block 2 licensed production. RTX press release Under the Direct Commercial Sale contract, Raytheon will provide missile kits, parts, and components as well as...

www.navalnews.com

I’d speculate that Japan is going to pull out all stops to make this a very successful project.

Cheers S

 

[Bob53]

A practical compromise for New Zealand’s frigate replacement could be for NZ to take the initial Japan-built upgraded Mogamis, while Australia uses the follow-on batches to move towards a more Australianised fit, including potential CEAFAR integration.

The Mogami’s radar fit is capable, but OPY-2 is an X-band AESA system, whereas CEAFAR gives Australia an superior X and S-band radar architecture already used across the fleet. That matters for capatbility, commonality, sustainment and future upgrades too.

NZ would still get a capable frigate well suited to its requirements, while Australia avoids locking itself into a small orphan fleet of early-standard ships

Thoughts?

Great suggestion

 

[Bob53]

[


Think they should have committed to upgrading atleast 4 of the youngest subs over 10 years(with all the bells and whistles) and then retire Farncomb and Collins once the first 2 upgraded boats return to service. +2 Virginias by 2036.

IMO, better than all 6 boats getting partial upgrades where necessary over 12 years. I just cant see Collins + Farncomb making it past the mid 2030s.

From what I can see of data a plans coming out if the USN for Australia to get Virginias will mean a reduction in US Fleet numbers. They cannot meet additional build requirements and nothing is going to change that over the next 6 years. Still struggling to get above 1.5 a year. To get AUKUS Virginias they had to get to 2.33 a year. It’s now fantasy to think the build rate will be achieved in time.

 

[Bob53]

No, no, no, for the love of... no!

The order of three frigates from Japanese yards was placed because the RAN needs to start getting suitable replacements for RAN ANZAC-class frigates that are or need to be retired and Australia cannot wait long enough for the Hunter-class frigates or the yet-to-be-started Australian SEA 3000 frigate builds to start deliveries. TBH I think it would have been a good idea if Australia negotiated some room to increase the size of the order with Japan to a 4th Mogami-class just in case it takes Henderson longer to start deliveries than is currently planned.

Australia giving up build slots to NZ for ships that need to start entering service soon to prevent too much additional shrinkage of the size of the fleet is just a non-starter. If Australia could reasonably have kept the ANZAC-class examples in service longer, then IMO Australia would have just skipped ordering any Japanese production and instead focused just on domestic Australian production of the Mogami-class. The fact that they did not strongly suggests to me that Australia does not feel it has enough time to wait for deliveries from Henderson to commence.

My interpretation is he is suggesting after we get mogami production line running so it would be like ship 7 would replace ship 1 and off it gos to RNZN. Then probably ship 9 and 11 Replace. 2 and 3

 

[Lolcake]

No, no, no, for the love of... no!

The order of three frigates from Japanese yards was placed because the RAN needs to start getting suitable replacements for RAN ANZAC-class frigates that are or need to be retired and Australia cannot wait long enough for the Hunter-class frigates or the yet-to-be-started Australian SEA 3000 frigate builds to start deliveries. TBH I think it would have been a good idea if Australia negotiated some room to increase the size of the order with Japan to a 4th Mogami-class just in case it takes Henderson longer to start deliveries than is currently planned.

Australia giving up build slots to NZ for ships that need to start entering service soon to prevent too much additional shrinkage of the size of the fleet is just a non-starter. If Australia could reasonably have kept the ANZAC-class examples in service longer, then IMO Australia would have just skipped ordering any Japanese production and instead focused just on domestic Australian production of the Mogami-class. The fact that they did not strongly suggests to me that Australia does not feel it has enough time to wait for deliveries from Henderson to commence.

New zealand wouldnt get our JP- Mogamis till the mid to late 30s. It could be also be on a staggered basis. I just don't like the idea or not having S-band in a radar suite when we have a far more capable radar system available.

The Mogamis have the capability to be T1 vessels. Why not take that opportunity.

We will still ultimately end up with 11 vessels without the orphan Jap fleet.

 

[Lolcake]

From what I can see of data a plans coming out if the USN for Australia to get Virginias will mean a reduction in US Fleet numbers. They cannot meet additional build requirements and nothing is going to change that over the next 6 years. Still struggling to get above 1.5 a year. To get AUKUS Virginias they had to get to 2.33 a year. It’s now fantasy to think the build rate will be achieved in time.

Discussed this in the Aukus thread. It doesn't have to meet thr build rate IMO

5 to 6 688i's are slated for the SLEP program, which allow a 12 to 15 year life extension. This will allow transfer of the 3 to 5 Virginia's to us without the need to meet the production rate.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We have also seen Japanese requests for industry to supply NSM integration and as listed in the article below it seems we are running with the Mk.54 torpedo though I have seen anything more official on this point. Interesting RAN has chosen MU-90 for Hunter and ANZAC but Mk.54 for Hobart and now this? Might suggest American assistance with not just the torpedoes but the launchers and perhaps combat systems on the ship themselves?

MU90 is also used on the Hobarts, but the Hobarts carry Mk54 for the helo..
On the Mogami, perhaps the mk.54 is just easier to integrate on that platform. Or maybe the want MU90 and Mk54 capability across the fleet.

Apparently the plan on the original Mogami's is not to carry ESSM. The upgraded Mogami really grew out of Australia's needs for more of a capable GP frigate. I don't think I full appreciated how different the intention and CONOPs of the two designs in terms of missions and capabilities.

I wouldn't be surprised after the hulls arrive if in 18-24 months they go in, get a new mast and radar, flip into the 9LV combat console setup. They get their Australianisation as basically a kit. Its basically what we are doing with the Hobarts.

New zealand wouldnt get our JP- Mogamis till the mid to late 30s. It could be also be on a staggered basis. I just don't like the idea or not having S-band in a radar suite when we have a far more capable radar system available.

I think if NZ wants mogami, they will just get them from Japan directly. Pushing a head of Japanese orders. Japan has lots of ships, its not impossible for them to arrange that.

 

[iambuzzard]

MU90 is also used on the Hobarts, but the Hobarts carry Mk54 for the helo..
On the Mogami, perhaps the mk.54 is just easier to integrate on that platform. Or maybe the want MU90 and Mk54 capability across the fleet.

Apparently the plan on the original Mogami's is not to carry ESSM. The upgraded Mogami really grew out of Australia's needs for more of a capable GP frigate. I don't think I full appreciated how different the intention and CONOPs of the two designs in terms of missions and capabilities.

I wouldn't be surprised after the hulls arrive if in 18-24 months they go in, get a new mast and radar, flip into the 9LV combat console setup. They get their Australianisation as basically a kit. Its basically what we are doing with the Hobarts.

I think if NZ wants mogami, they will just get them from Japan directly. Pushing a head of Japanese orders. Japan has lots of ships, its not impossible for them to arrange that.

The Japanese are standing up a third shipyard and knowing how efficient they are could probably slot in NZ hulls without affecting their production.

 

[spoz]

The upgraded Mogami really grew out of Australia's needs for more of a capable GP frigate. I don't think I full appreciated how different the intention and CONOPs of the two designs in terms of missions and capabilities.

Not really. The JMSDF was planning the upgraded Mogami (as the “New FFM”) by 2023 at the latest, well before we became seriously interested following the Surface Fleet Review, which wasn’t completed until the end of that year. The JMSDF need that spec to replace some of their older DDs and DEs - the Asagiris and Abukumas which are getting long in the tooth, and poorly adapted for modern conditions (particularly numbers in the ship’s company). The originals are a pretty good replacement for the Abukiris, but not really the Asagiris. They realised that, cut the original intent to buy 22 and expanded the design for the last 12, which will give a total of 24 of both classes I think.

 

[MickB]

New zealand wouldnt get our JP- Mogamis till the mid to late 30s. It could be also be on a staggered basis. I just don't like the idea or not having S-band in a radar suite when we have a far more capable radar system available.

The Mogamis have the capability to be T1 vessels. Why not take that opportunity.

We will still ultimately end up with 11 vessels without the orphan Jap fleet.

Agree I read this as when future Aus built ships come into service the original Japanese builds are transfered to NZ.
This would eleminate an orphan fleet within the RAN
I would also push for at least 4 to 5 Japanese builds as this would increase RAN numbers faster.
I also belive that a future NZ GOTD will have to realise that it needs at least 4 to 5 FFGs to control its EEZ.

 

[ADMk2]

Any idea of the potential magazine capacity of reloads for the RIM-116?

Nothing that I have seen. Similar with the Mk.45 and air weapons magazine/s for the MH-60R.

The ships are bigger than the Anzac Class though, so I suspect they are all respectable.

 

[old faithful]

Re the LOTE gor Collins, what a monumentle.stuff up!
Really Rudd identified the need tomdouble the sub force, but did nothing, Turnbull signed us up.for the wrong sub, Morrrison kicked the french deal out and signed us to AUKUS, which was a better idea than the French deal, now Albo agrees to an 11.5 bn $ deal to patch up the collins while we wait for AUKUS.....Abbott wanted the Jap subs.....what would 12 Jap subs cost us ? Would that have sufficed? I know the nuke subs are whatbwe really need, but wouldnt 12 subs have tied us over while we decided on the nukes?

 

[SammyC]

The initial batch of 3x Mogami FFM for RAN will have the Mk.45 MOD 4 gun, the 32x cell ‘strike length’ VLS, ESSM Block 2, 8x naval strike missile canister launched missiles, 11x round SeaRAM launcher firing RIM-116 Block II Rolling Airframe missiles, a pair of torpedo launchers and a pair of remote weapon station mounted gun systems (type has not presently been revealed), plus the MH-60R Romeo weapon system and perhaps a drone capability of some type.

Future iterations are likely to expand on these weapons options, but will likely require sensor and combat system upgrades as well as additional weapons integration. SM-2, Tomahawk and perhaps SM-6 are likely future candidates.

If the Mogami gets configured for SM2, then SM6 kind of comes alongas a bonus.

It can see a placr for an SM2 configured Mogami, but SM6 i struggle with.

Whhile the SM6 has multiple capabilities, its primary use for the RAM is as a terminal balistic defence weapon. I

Agree I read this as when future Aus built ships come into service the original Japanese builds are transfered to NZ.
This would eleminate an orphan fleet within the RAN
I would also push for at least 4 to 5 Japanese builds as this would increase RAN numbers faster.
I also belive that a future NZ GOTD will have to realise that it needs at least 4 to 5 FFGs to control its EEZ.

I'm not sure where the orphan fleet view is coming from.

From all media releases, the first three from Japan, plus at least the second three from Henderson are all being built to the same design. It is only from hull 7 that there is consideration for any significant modifications.

Also Australia is so short of hulls, that even when Henderson comes online we will still be short. I can't see the RAN being in a position to transfer any ships until well into the 40s.

 

[spoz]

What makes people think that the three Mogamis to be built in Japan will become orphans when compared to the Australian built ships? There is no indication that significant modifications are planned. Similarly, why do people think that their combat system (which is at the heart of the ship) will be replaced? If all 11 are built, they will outnumber the SAAB equipped ships by 2 and will certainly have sufficient mass to mean that supporting them will not place an unreasonable strain on the RAN. It is a very competent system in its own right; and one designed to be interoperable with Aegis equipped ships; so why change what works.

The analogy to the Hobarts is flawed; when the decision to change thei ATI was made they would have been in a 9-3 minority. It indeed made sense to provide a common user interface in that situation. The same is not true in a 9-11 situation.

Before someone brings up the fact that the Aust built ships will use a different supply chain - yes that is true, but the equipment will have the same form, fit and function. And the vast majority of the kit will be purchased through the Australian representatives of the Japanese OEM. The stuff that isn’t is likely to be either stuff also fitted in the original 3 to make them suitable for Australian use (crypto, galley etc) or common commercial items like washing machines.

And why do people think Australia is interested in allowing NZ to bludge off us? They need to get their act together, not depend on us to pull them out of a whole of their own making - at our cost.

 

[Lolcake]

What makes people think that the three Mogamis to be built in Japan will become orphans when compared to the Australian built ships? There is no indication that significant modifications are planned. Similarly, why do people think that their combat system (which is at the heart of the ship) will be replaced? If all 11 are built, they will outnumber the SAAB equipped ships by 2 and will certainly have sufficient mass to mean that supporting them will not place an unreasonable strain on the RAN. It is a very competent system in its own right; and one designed to be interoperable with Aegis equipped ships; so why change what works.

The analogy to the Hobarts is flawed; when the decision to change thei ATI was made they would have been in a 9-3 minority. It indeed made sense to provide a common user interface in that situation. The same is not true in a 9-11 situation.

Before someone brings up the fact that the Aust built ships will use a different supply chain - yes that is true, but the equipment will have the same form, fit and function. And the vast majority of the kit will be purchased through the Australian representatives of the Japanese OEM. The stuff that isn’t is likely to be either stuff also fitted in the original 3 to make them suitable for Australian use (crypto, galley etc) or common commercial items like washing machines.

And why do people think Australia is interested in allowing NZ to bludge off us? They need to get their act together, not depend on us to pull them out of a whole of their own making - at our cost.

The suggestion was more along the lines of introducing a radar system that has a a superior X band and S band capability. Making it a t1 vessel.

We will have years to find a way integrate CEAFAR on the Mogami. In service date for the 4th ship is not until mid next decade.

 

[SammyC]

The suggestion was more along the lines of introducing a radar system that has a a superior X band and S band capability. Making it a t1 vessel.

We will have years to find a way integrate CEAFAR on the Mogami. In service date for the 4th ship is not until mid next decade.

I would suggest horses for courses.

The single x band on the first gen Mogamis is a reasonably good radar. X band is a capable all rounder system. Its not long range, so it is less effective beyond the horizon, but I will point out that most stealth threats will approach from the waterline, so no radar is going to detect them until they are within 30-40km. It doesn't matter what you have. Also less capable does not mean not capable. X band can still be utilised for long range air surveilance. Its just not as optimised.

I'm still yet to see anything formal about what the upgraded Mogami radar will be, photos indicate it is an improvement on the classic.

Also remember the Mogami is a GP frigate. Its not intended as an anti ballistic missile platform. I doubt it will ever get SM6. It is not intended to be a frontline AWD either. Its an allrounder in numbers. If we try and make it a tier 1 we just end up with something as expensive and less purpose built as a Hunter. That doesn't help. Want more tier 1s, make more Hunters.

I will also point out that ships often travel without the main radar in operation, as it is like a light house beacon to any observer. In a complex war time scenario, the radar may well spend a lot of time off and only come on for the end phase. Ships rely on other offboard (such as satellite intel) or passive sensors to analyse their surroundings in these scenarios. Ships that survive do this better than others.

For the extreme cost to upgrade and replace the combat system and radar (look at the Hobart upgrade for an indication of the cost magnitude for just the combat system), I'm thinking there are more value adding investments to both the Mogamis and the defence force as a whole.

In regards to the combat system, its possible that Australia may look to make more use of the Mogami platform on future ship types, and perhaps move away from 9LV as the standard. Times change, and technology moves on. Sometimes new systems are better than the old or existing. There is nothing to say the Mogami system is a bad or problematic package.

 

[Stampede]

Re the LOTE gor Collins, what a monumentle.stuff up!
Really Rudd identified the need tomdouble the sub force, but did nothing, Turnbull signed us up.for the wrong sub, Morrrison kicked the french deal out and signed us to AUKUS, which was a better idea than the French deal, now Albo agrees to an 11.5 bn $ deal to patch up the collins while we wait for AUKUS.....Abbott wanted the Jap subs.....what would 12 Jap subs cost us ? Would that have sufficed? I know the nuke subs are whatbwe really need, but wouldnt 12 subs have tied us over while we decided on the nukes?

My take is what do you want from your submarine force.
I certainly don’t claim any professional expertise on the subject and I don’t want to get into the nuclear versus conventional debate in the context of one being better than the other.
The above however is an important question.

Are we content to have our submarine force as a regional deterrent parked in waiting a thousand km of so off and around our coast.
Or do we won’t a long range apex predator that can hunt and deter at speed.
A north Asian operator that can be a meaningful alliance asset.
What do we pay for that privilege?

Both options have trade offs militarily and politically.

Whats best for a balanced ADF going forward.
What’s best for how we see ourselves fitting into our region politically going forward.

If we could turn back the clock what would we have done differently?

I want to like an SSN for the RAN, however I do see merit in a large force of conventionals.

I do feel the later option would have been the best path forward.

Cheers S

 

[StingrayOZ]

The originals are a pretty good replacement for the Abukiris, but not really the Asagiris. They realised that, cut the original intent to buy 22 and expanded the design for the last 12, which will give a total of 24 of both classes I think.

The concept with the asagiris is interesting.. ASROC and phalanx, and seasparrow launchers

The way they evolve Asagiris out of the earlier Hatsuyukui. Also the load out of something like Murasame (16 mk 41 and 16 mk 48). Same with Takanami. These are all destroyers. And carry ASOC and ESSM.

Also apparently cancelling later builds is fairly common, however, unlike other countries, the replace the cancelled ships with newer better ships that get built.

I like how the Japanese evolve designs, make meaningful improvements. Periodically have a cleansheet but with mitigations on risk. They have clear targets for capabilities.

Its entirely possible that the mogami design continues to evolve and becomes more of a destroyer. They could cancel/modify the last 6 of the new mogami and make them more capable with more capable radar and air defence focus. I wonder if Australia would follow that. Or if all 12 will be built no change.

There are Kongo and Murasame replacements in the works which we should keep an eye on.

 

[Todjaeger]

My interpretation is he is suggesting after we get mogami production line running so it would be like ship 7 would replace ship 1 and off it gos to RNZN. Then probably ship 9 and 11 Replace. 2 and 3

No, no, and still no. In order for these numbers to be achieved, Australia would need to order a total of 14 frigates for SEA 3000, not 11. Further, transferring the Mogami-class frigates built in Japan to NZ would lead to a shortage of surface vessels in the RAN, especially if the transfer were to happen by when NZ was planning on retiring their current frigates. As it stands now, both Australia and NZ are currently planning on retiring all ANZAC-class frigates by the mid-2030's.

What this means it that by ~2035, the RAN will consist of three each Hobart-class DDG's, Hunter-class FFG, SEA3000 (Upgraded Mogami-class) GPF's built in Japan, and whatever, if any, Australian-built versions have been completed, accepted and entered into service. It is quite possible that by 2035, only the first Australian-built example might have been completed. That would match the current size of the RAN at present, and still be well short of the aspirational long-term target of 20 crewed MFU's.

Trying to transfer RAN frigates to NZ at that point in time would force an overall reduction in the number of RAN majors in service at that point in time.