Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Sending such a high level ambassador to Australia indicates that South Korea is serious about winning the Tier 2 GP Frigate contract.

South Korea sending high-powered Ambassador to Australia - APDR
I expect South Korea to throw everything they can into this competition, they are still a relative newcomer to exporting warships and naval exports don't get much bigger than this. There are a few countries who will sit up and take notice on who comes out on top.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't think 9LV fitting to the ships will be much a problem. Fitting aegis IMO, will shoot up the cost, by billions, require more space and power, and require more integration work, and I think we would have to ask what is the purpose and priority of doing that. Do tier 2 frigates need ballistic missile interception when they don't have the missiles for that, or data fusion, when they are fuse onto bigger more capable assets (e7/AWD).

CEAFAR is probably doable if we have modest ambitions on power and size. It might fit into the existing mogami mast.

I believe most Japanese ships can fire US weapons, even if they are fitted with Japanese weapons. The Japanese seek US weapon capability, because if a war breaks out, Japans stockpile, warehouses and factories are likely to be a risk. Almost every Japanese weapon system stems from an original US system or design. Japan never really intended to independently develop weapons and sell them on the open market, where you might want a completely indigenous weapon system based on unique, FMS free, and non-compatible technology. There may be some integration that needs to happen, but its not deal breaker stuff. They aren't Europeans.

The South Korean ships might be easier to integrate as they technologically less ambitious and a bit more conventional. But much applies to them as well, they stem their tech from the US, even if fitted with Korean systems, space, power and weight is compatible with US systems generally. Mogami batch II might be *too advanced* requiring to much money, time, tech to build in Australia.

IMO this is a contest between SK and JP with Navantia and others running as backup/benchmark. While nothing is a given, I think SK and JP will be given real heavy consideration, and they both have two very interesting products and can offer a whole lot in other related areas and as a build package.

I wonder if the LHDs will be next?
Radars are becoming much more than just a radar to find heading and direction of objects. They are communication arrays and the biggest and most powerful EW asset in the space. They are essential for combat management and situational awareness, beyond just pinging bogies, they are very much becoming essential parts of the combat system and cannot be removed from it.

Aegis was the computer and the radar, aussie 9LV is turning into the same thing, 9LV/Ceafar fusion.
I hear talk that a LHD may be pulled out of the water, perhaps to receive upgrades.

Quite a lot happening. Timeframes are being pushed forward these days. Almost like we are trying to get ahead of something.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
I expect South Korea to throw everything they can into this competition, they are still a relative newcomer to exporting warships and naval exports don't get much bigger than this. There are a few countries who will sit up and take notice on who comes out on top.
Yes, and if Japan does end up contributing to AUKUS, then it would make the Mogami an even better option - there will be a lot of politics involved in the frigate selection process.

AUKUS eyes defense tech collaboration with Japan, report says
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes, and if Japan does end up contributing to AUKUS, then it would make the Mogami an even better option - there will be a lot of politics involved in the frigate selection process.
Japan has been shifting this way for many years.

South Korea has been too, but I think at this stage, Japan has been really active with both the UK and AU. Particularly with ship building.


Both are being really active. Looking for problems to solve. If there is one thing we can export to Korea and Japan, its problems in need of solutions!
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
An earlier article on Austal went into detail of Austal's issues and the quality of the Chinese provided aluminium for its ships for the RAN ,are there any guidelines to suggests that ships for the RAN are to be made of steel?
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
The Japanese will have a minimum of 3 new FFM in service before 1 overseas built Frigate is in Australia.
Going with the Mogami makes no sense unless an Indonesian order is built inbetween japans 12 and Australia’s 3.

The A210, Alpha 5000 and FFX Batch IV, the other successors to the chosen designs will not exist prior to the first Australian build.
I hope logic prevails and they go with the new Japanese frigate, find some more money or cut the order from 11 down to 9.

Mogami
11x16cells = 176 (core crew 990)
FFM
11x32cells = 352 (core crew 990)
9x32cells = 288 (core crew 810)
7x32cells = 224 (core crew 630)

Even with the minimum number of frigates recommended(7) results in an increase of total cells and a reduction of 360 core crew compared with 11 Mogami class.
 

Takao

The Bunker Group
And to address the elephant in the room, how are we going to crew all these magical ships and boats (subs)? We are effectively tripling or more the number of hulls in the water. Most people can't see past the destroyers and frigates and forget the support craft. They will need to have a degree of self defense so that will require extra crew. Plus a degree of electronic defence systems. That will require a lot of crewing.
We will effectively be bigger that the Royal Navy.
Why, give them to the Army!

What could be easier for an Army to do than drive 4-6kt ships around? to quote a recent conversation - they are just bigger LCM-8s!

*slinks away, shaking head*
 

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
My comment was not about crewing them by army, it was about actually having combat forces to transport in the boats!
Unless the reserves are utilised more, but honestly, in this day and age a two week recruit course and a two week IET course, 1 weekend a month and two weeks a year, is not going to give us a well trained army.
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
I'd think the landing craft are going to be largely for Army forward logistics in littoral and archipelagic areas. Hence them being quite large and more capable of operating independently over longer distances and in tougher weather.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just need to give them some decent defensive firepower. And the extra height wouldn't hurt either.
This would be a possibility:


Basically it's a slant launch Mk-41 VLS launch canister compatible system that could probably be fitted to the LHDs.
 

iambuzzard

Active Member
The Japanese will have a minimum of 3 new FFM in service before 1 overseas built Frigate is in Australia.
Going with the Mogami makes no sense unless an Indonesian order is built inbetween japans 12 and Australia’s 3.

The A210, Alpha 5000 and FFX Batch IV, the other successors to the chosen designs will not exist prior to the first Australian build.
I hope logic prevails and they go with the new Japanese frigate, find some more money or cut the order from 11 down to 9.

Mogami
11x16cells = 176 (core crew 990)
FFM
11x32cells = 352 (core crew 990)
9x32cells = 288 (core crew 810)
7x32cells = 224 (core crew 630)

Even with the minimum number of frigates recommended(7) results in an increase of total cells and a reduction of 360 core crew compared with 11 Mogami class.
At this stage we don't want to reduce the numbers. It's taken a lifetime for a sensible decision on fleet size to be made by a Government of any persuasion. The Coalition started to wake up and Labor finally got out of bed! Don't talk them out of it.
 

iambuzzard

Active Member
Why, give them to the Army!

What could be easier for an Army to do than drive 4-6kt ships around? to quote a recent conversation - they are just bigger LCM-8s!

*slinks away, shaking head*
Can't hurt. Look what they do to aeroplanes. Proves trucks can fly! (Tongue firmly in cheek)! Sorry guys. It just slipped out.
 

iambuzzard

Active Member
I'd think the landing craft are going to be largely for Army forward logistics in littoral and archipelagic areas. Hence them being quite large and more capable of operating independently over longer distances and in tougher weather.
Just make sure they have something BIG to shoot at the bad guys with.
 

76mmGuns

Active Member
I suspect this may be a case of media sensationalism and not all that reliable but "Britain's cash-strapped Navy 'may be forced to sell off its £3.5 billion aircraft carrier the HMS Prince of Wales' amid funding issues"

Would add an interesting dynamic to the fleet review changes if the RAN were to buy it. Since its 2nd hand, half-price? :D.
Given you'd then have to crew it, buy 20 F-35B's, find pilots for them, buy the missiles, build the infrastructure to put something so big, I think I personally would prefer the $5-10bn AUD be used on another 4-6 Hunters tbh.

:)

........woops, I see I'm late to the comment party about the RN carrier!
 
Top