Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

we
spoz said:
I think mid 32 is IOC, not delivery. A distinction most of the press, including regrettably much of the specialist press, doesn’t seem to understand.
Click to expand...
Agree
When is a new vessel actually ready for constructive service?
Hunters , Mogami, SSNs
Look at these time frames and we get a true sense of our fleet’s capabilities today and our capability in transition for the decade ahead.

Hence attention to the fleet we have, not dreams of a distant future.

Cheers S
 
SammyC said:
I'm thinking you need a herbal tea stingray. Mind you the world does seem to be deteriorating faster than I was expecting lately.
Click to expand...
Maybe. A bex and a lie down.

I just think we may want to get our ducks lined up as best as we can before the 2028 US election. Not that it is itself the critical juncture, but several things are coalescing at the same time. At that time, getting anything coherent out of the US is unlikely. For a number of reasons anything being built after 2028 may become much harder and slower, even in country. I guess my vignette is, what would we do if we absolutely knew that the end of 2028 global trade ceases, there is huge global disorder and America withdraws from Asia. Remove the emotion and the scepticism and treat it just like a thinktank style proposition.

I am also not so worried about range of any later Arafura. We would have 4-6 long range Arafura.

But as we know. Changing from building one type of ship to another, takes time. We are already 6 deep into the Arafuras, We are at the pointy end of efficiency and productivity. The cost of 2 isn't the same as the cost of the first 2. It isn't about weapons either.

A 10m size push can do wonders for a platform, compare the Flight 1 F110 and Flight 2 110. for a 5m size increase.

One of the things about the Arafuras, if we do over build, I think they would be a relatively easy ship to hand off to one of our larger friendly neighbours. This is not some ultra complex destroyer covered in ITAR. If we wanted to gift it to Fiji or PNG or Timor or Philippines or Brunei, that would be possible. Perhaps some costs would fall to us at least in part, but manning etc is possible.
 
Looks like Japan will have 4 Sakura class OPVs in service before we have 3 Arafuras.

2 years to build and put into service 4 95m 1,950t (Sakura)OPVs.
vs
9 years before we see 4 80m 1,650t (Arafura)OPVs in service and 5x the cost.


Sakura class Sea trials (also has a 30mm MG from the beginning)


 
Reptilia said:
Looks like Japan will have 4 Sakura class OPVs in service before we have 3 Arafuras.

2 years to build and put into service 4 95m 1,950t (Sakura)OPVs.
vs
9 years before we see 4 80m 1,650t (Arafura)OPVs in service and 5x the cost.
Click to expand...

Whilst it doesn't excuse it (Government should order more ships more regularly instead...) our "drum beat" is designed to deliver continuous naval shipbuilding with the limited number of ships we order, rather than being a timely and efficient ship-builder.

They are prepared to wear the cost, political fallout and capability impacts of ships taking forever for those jobs.

Because those jobs are the REALLY important thing afterall...
 
StingrayOZ said:
Maybe. A bex and a lie down.

I just think we may want to get our ducks lined up as best as we can before the 2028 US election. Not that it is itself the critical juncture, but several things are coalescing at the same time. At that time, getting anything coherent out of the US is unlikely. For a number of reasons anything being built after 2028 may become much harder and slower, even in country. I guess my vignette is, what would we do if we absolutely knew that the end of 2028 global trade ceases, there is huge global disorder and America withdraws from Asia. Remove the emotion and the scepticism and treat it just like a thinktank style proposition.

I am also not so worried about range of any later Arafura. We would have 4-6 long range Arafura.

But as we know. Changing from building one type of ship to another, takes time. We are already 6 deep into the Arafuras, We are at the pointy end of efficiency and productivity. The cost of 2 isn't the same as the cost of the first 2. It isn't about weapons either.

A 10m size push can do wonders for a platform, compare the Flight 1 F110 and Flight 2 110. for a 5m size increase.

One of the things about the Arafuras, if we do over build, I think they would be a relatively easy ship to hand off to one of our larger friendly neighbours. This is not some ultra complex destroyer covered in ITAR. If we wanted to gift it to Fiji or PNG or Timor or Philippines or Brunei, that would be possible. Perhaps some costs would fall to us at least in part, but manning etc is possible.
Click to expand...
I’ll try and keep the geo politics to a minimum but we are in a very dynamic environment of political change. Long term norms of stability and constants cannot be taken for granted.
I do believe we are at a global crossroads.
A major conflict in Europe, the Middle East and sabre rattling in northern Asia.
Nations are adjusting their allegiances for their own self preservation and on this international chessboard. It’s hard to know where it’s all going..
I’m open that there might be a bright future for all but history shows that rapid change leads to unfortunate consequences.
Escalations can happen very quickly.

We need a Royal Australian Navy that can cater for an abroad range of challenging contingencies.
We need that navy today and we need that navy as we transition to our newer and bigger fleet.

This is a big challenge ,but it starts with recognition of the world we are in today
22/08/2026.
No more pushing the can down the road.
We need prompt action not denial.


So yes I probably need a bex and a lie down as well but that’s my take on reading the tea leaves.

Cheers S
 
Also, building the hulls is unlikely to be the limiting factor if you throw the cheque book at the problem.

There are quite a few places on the east coast that would probably able to build modules, and some of them could assemble vessels.

I’m thinking places like Harwood Marine, Birdon Port Macquarie, CIVMEC Tomago etc.

That’s ignoring land based heavy engineering firms that could build modules as long as you keep them small enough to road transport.

The limiting factors are going to be the components that we don’t manufacture onshore.
 
StevoJH said:
Also, building the hulls is unlikely to be the limiting factor if you throw the cheque book at the problem.

There are quite a few places on the east coast that would probably able to build modules, and some of them could assemble vessels.

I’m thinking places like Harwood Marine, Birdon Port Macquarie, CIVMEC Tomago etc.

That’s ignoring land based heavy engineering firms that could build modules as long as you keep them small enough to road transport.

The limiting factors are going to be the components that we don’t manufacture onshore.
Click to expand...

To your point, any vessel is going to need at least a basic combat system and some form of defence missile (guns will only go so far). If we were to hypothetically loose access to the American SM, ESSM and AIM familes of missiles, which already have long lead times into next decade, what could we muster as a replacement.

We might have a rocket engine capability within say two years, we already make a significant number of parts for the ESSM, and we have reasonable explosives capability, but I think we lack any guidance, fuse and targeting depth. If we found ourselves at the wrong end of a supply shortfall could we pull something together for the missing components?

In regards to the combat system, how much of the 9LV or the Kongsberg NASAM systems are actually made or could be made in Australia?
 
It would be extremely useful to be able to domestically produce ESSM and AMRAAM including all component parts, even if only in relatively small numbers.

There is probably something to be said for integrating CAMM/CAMM-ER, MICA-VL, AMRAAM-ER and maybe even Aster into future combatants if possible even if they are not planned to be purchased in numbers.

Yes it will cost, but it gives options.

Does CEA actually produce their own T/R modules for example? Or do they order them from overseas and assemble into the final product?

I also highly doubt any of the IC's for 9LV, NASAM's etc are possible to produce locally at this time.
 
StevoJH said:
It would be extremely useful to be able to domestically produce ESSM and AMRAAM including all component parts, even if only in relatively small numbers.

There is probably something to be said for integrating CAMM/CAMM-ER, MICA-VL, AMRAAM-ER and maybe even Aster into future combatants if possible even if they are not planned to be purchased in numbers.

Yes it will cost, but it gives options.

Does CEA actually produce their own T/R modules for example? Or do they order them from overseas and assemble into the final product?

I also highly doubt any of the IC's for 9LV, NASAM's etc are possible to produce locally at this time.
Click to expand...

Given that the Russians and Ukranians seem to be able to make missiles from the 1980's scrap bin and washing machine parts, I would have thought we could have moved faster.
 
ADMk2 said:
Whilst it doesn't excuse it (Government should order more ships more regularly instead...) our "drum beat" is designed to deliver continuous naval shipbuilding with the limited number of ships we order, rather than being a timely and efficient ship-builder.

They are prepared to wear the cost, political fallout and capability impacts of ships taking forever for those jobs.

Because those jobs are the REALLY important thing afterall...
Click to expand...
What about defence of the nation as a priority? We're not building taxis!
 
Only slight problem with that story is that th SPY-6 is S band whereas the OPY-2 is X.band, radars with very different capabilities and purposes. Swapping them would require a complete redesign of the ship’s sensor package, which seems unlikely unless the Japanese are unhappy with the present set up. There has been no obvious indication that is the case. Further, Japan is already buying the competing LM SPY-7, albeit for a different use. Could just be a case of Raytheon “puff” - they are known for it.

Interesting comment about SPY-6 being CMS agnostic - most radars are. It is, rather, a matter of if the CMS can readily accept the radar than the other way around. Possibly a bit of marketing double talk?
 
Last edited:
spoz said:
Only slight problem with that story is that th SPY-6 is S band whereas the OPY-2 is X.band, radars with very different capabilities and purposes. Swapping them would require a complete redesign of the ship’s sensor package, which seems unlikely unless the Japanese are unhappy with the present set up. There has been no obvious indication that is the case. Further, Japan is already buying the competing LM SPY-7, albeit for a different use. Could just be a case of Raytheon “puff” - they are known for it.

Interesting comment about SPY-6 being CMS agnostic - most radars are. It is, rather, a matter of if the CMS can readily accept the radar than the other way around. Possibly a bit of marketing double talk?
Click to expand...
In addition to Japan, Spain and Canada are also buying SPY-7 so there could be a price incentive in using them on future upgraded Mogami frigates.
 
I can't see the Japanese modifying the current batch of upgraded Mogamis (10) before integrating such a design change. I'm not sure if they want more Mogamis after that.

If they did, they have their own, they have the more capable FCS3 fitted to their small destroyers. Its dual band, as well.

In this day and age of America being unreliable and starting to use supply as a means of coersion, I would think Japan might think twice before putting too many systems in the American shopping basket.
 
Perhaps I was misunderstood, I never meant to imply that SPY-6 or SPY-7 was replacing OPY-2 on the 'original' 133m Mogami class already built or under construction, rather that SPY-6 or SPY-7 is reportedly being explored instead as the primary radar for the new 'upgraded' 142m Mogami.
 
JBRobbo said:
Perhaps I was misunderstood, I never meant to imply that SPY-6 or SPY-7 was replacing OPY-2 on the 'original' 133m Mogami class already built or under construction, rather that SPY-6 or SPY-7 is reportedly being explored instead as the primary radar for the new 'upgraded' 142m Mogami.
Click to expand...

Why would Japan do that when they have their own radar designs that they can use, and which they own the IP for?
 
JBRobbo said:
Perhaps I was misunderstood, I never meant to imply that SPY-6 or SPY-7 was replacing OPY-2 on the 'original' 133m Mogami class already built or under construction, rather that SPY-6 or SPY-7 is reportedly being explored instead as the primary radar for the new 'upgraded' 142m Mogami.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking even for the upgraded mogami it would be difficult to incorporate a SPY 6 or 7. I think the first two upgraded versions are already in construction, with five contracted in addition to the three Australian versions, and they are all scheduled to have them all built within about 6 years.

The benefit of an x band radar is that it can be a general purpose search and a fire control radar all in one. I would suggest it is why it was picked for the compact mogami frame (classic and upgraded).

If a SPY is installed then it would need to come with at least an SGP62 as well.

The SPY and 62 combined package would likely weight a lot more than the OPY2, driving significant stability problems, leading to larger hulls. Hunter dramas come to mind with this slipery slope.

I'm actually thinking that a CEAFAR would be an easier package to retrofit than the SPY.
 
The SPY-6(V)3 for the Constellation FFG’s and JFK onwards CVN’s consists of only 3x fixed 6ft faces with 9x RMA modules each compared to 4x fixed 14ft faces with 37 RMA modules a piece for the SPY-6(V)1 on the Burke flight III. Likewise the SPY-7(V)2 variant for the Spanish F-110 will be significantly smaller in scale than whatever SPY-7 variant is to equip the future Japanese ASEV. Oils ain’t Oils. It was made clear from its public debut that the radar for the new 142m Mogami was to be enhanced to reflect its greater emphasis on air warfare, we already know this. Yes, Japan already design and produce their own GaN-based AESA’s but as far as I’m aware nothing in S-band, only C-band and X-band. Even their most modern Maya class DDG’s commissioned in 20’ & 21’ use the PESA SPY-1D(V), when the capability to develop a superior S-band AESA equivalent in-country was already well established. Perhaps the interest in SPY-6/7 (if indeed true) indicates a preference for an S-band rather than C-band surveillance radar (e.g. Asahi, Akizuki) for future JMSDF 2nd rate combatants and a resistance to more or less duplicating in-house an existing American design that would essentially offer the same or perhaps even less capability (and with extremely poor export potential by comparison) to reduce time to enter service/keep production at pace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top