Is it possible the retirement of the first ANZACs is deliberate to enable them to have their hardware reused in the new GPFs? The CMS is largely seperate from the ships other systems so it wouldn't involve much in the way of integration, just finding the space to fit it? Potentially the comments of purchasing an off the shelf design may refer more to the physical design rather than the systems if the plan is to reuse a current working system.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I really hope you are right. But I fear that we are about to throw a few billion at warships which cannot network with and are not armed with similar systems as the rest of the RAN.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
As I understand it, fitting a CMS aboard a modern warship is not as simply as 'just' finding a space to fit it. Of course space is needed for the computers which comprise part of the CMS, but there also needs to be space and access for maintenance, as well as to run the required power, networking and ventilation/cooling. Further, there needs to be space for the stations and operators in order to make use of the sensors and everything else tied into the CMS. I would also expect that some sort of fire control or suppression system would be needed, and more likely one which would not effectively put out an onboard fire but still completely ruin a computer system.
I would expect that any/all the designs being considered have these features designed into them, but whether the various designs and configurations would be able to incorporate existing RAN kit and/or kit pulled from decommissioned ANZAC-class frigates and another question entirely. This other question is also one of those where making assumptions could very easily lead to poor or unusable outcomes.
This also leads back to part of the reason why I am rather dubious about the supposed general purpose frigate, because the selection is supposed to be getting made in such a short period of time that it does not leave much time to ensure that whatever is selected will meet Australian maritime and naval requirements. Of course no contract has been signed as yet, so there is still a real possibility that the current gov't might never actually order any such frigates.
If time or speed is of the essence, then the selected design would need to be as much as possible a COTS build, which would likely also mean being stuck with whatever CMS and interfaces was included in the base or original design.
Unless buying used ships, already under construction ships, or slots on a current production order, it is actually pretty normal to specify the CMS and other systems prefered.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, but that would potentially trigger detailed design work to ensure that the specified systems and all the required supporting systems or infrastructure can also be fitted and function. One of the problems I suspect the GPF programme might run into is that there just does not seem to be sufficient time for the selection to be made ahead of first steel getting cut for any/all detailed design work to be completed.
Potentially if there is no window of opportunity for the first two or three, they could be completed to a different baseline to the Australian built eight.
In fact I would hope the Australian built ships would be ordered in batches with an evolving baseline. The first three could be onsold or cascaded to allies and an additional local batch ordered.
Design may be chosen next year but I don’t think steel cutting in 2026 is a must as long as the first frigate is delivered in 2029.
If no big changes need to be made, both the new designs from Japan and Korea - FFM or FFX batch IV could potentially be purchased straight off the production line at the end of the decade. One of the Type 31s is also possible.
The Al Jubail corvette production run of 5 has wrapped up with Navantia. I’m sure Navantia would love to begin another build asap and would do pretty much anything to get the contract, (offer a destroyer or more than 3 frigates sooner than expected, whatever they have to do…)
The last MEKO A200 for Egypt and the last Mogami are in production and I doubt Japan would want to start a run of 3 again in 2026 when they have already moved onto the FFM by then across 2 yards.
TKMS who do not have guaranteed continuous naval shipbuilding would happily build 3 frigates but they definitely must begin construction in 2026 to deliver a MEKO A200 by 2029.
If no big changes need to be made, both the new designs from Japan and Korea - FFM or FFX batch IV could potentially be purchased straight off the production line at the end of the decade. One of the Type 31s is also possible.
The Al Jubail corvette production run of 5 has wrapped up with Navantia. I’m sure Navantia would love to begin another build asap and would do pretty much anything to get the contract, (offer a destroyer or more than 3 frigates sooner than expected, whatever they have to do…)
The last MEKO A200 for Egypt and the last Mogami are in production and I doubt Japan would want to start a run of 3 again in 2026 when they have already moved onto the FFM by then across 2 yards.
TKMS who do not have guaranteed continuous naval shipbuilding would happily build 3 frigates but they definitely must begin construction in 2026 to deliver a MEKO A200 by 2029.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
If you choose the Japanese option it must be the FFM. Same crewing, 32 VLS and improved ASW. Picking the Mogami is going backwards even though it's way superior to our current ANZACS.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
The main issue probably isn't the hull, its the long lead items that need to be ordered to turn that bare hull into a functioning warship.
If you place an order for 12x 8 Cell Mk.41 Strike Length VLS with Lockheed Martin tomorrow, when are they going to be available? Same for the radars.
Unless (for example) Japan gives up a build slot on the FFM program to Australia, are the long lead items going to be available to have a ship delivered four years after contract signing?
So at the moment, we No frigates on order, no hunters or Anzac replacements, don't know if Collins LOTE will go ahead, and we have a goal of nuke a single nuke sub in 2032....has a contract been negotiated for that yet, is there an actual contract signed saying we will get 3 Virginias with options for 2 more, or it that still a hand shake atm?
Last edited:
Yes, I think Japan would have to give up build slots for aus from late 2029-2033. 3 of the 9 expected in that timeframe. Would add a couple years to the Japanese timeline and they would have to order additional equipment but not 5+ years in advance.
FFM is much bigger, 1,000+ton heavier 142mx17m and taller compared to the Mogamis 133mx16m. I doubt the drumbeat can be sped up.
12 new FFM 8 or 9 years from now is fast, 15 seems very unlikely.
Last edited:
Interesting goings on over at Raytheon: Leadership overhaul at Raytheon Australia amid tensions with government over massive weapons project. Dealt with all of them in the reasonably recent past and somewhat surprised not at it happening so much as at the level of slaughter. However, Ohad is very good, and should do well as CEO, even if only for a short period.
Hi Reptilia, I have a similar view on build time, but different take on Japan's ability to expand production.
I can't find a lot on the Japanese ship building cadence, however they have been able to consistently pump out two Mogami vessels per year to date from the two shipyards (Mitsubishi and Mitsui). Mogami production (the original 12) is due to finish in 2027, with the first completed back in 2022 and first of class steel made in 2019. From first steel cuts to launching takes about 12 months, with an additional 12 months to commissioning. So a six month cadence, a two year build and an eight year program for 12 ships. That's pretty good.
The first of their new FFMs is from what I have read due to be laid down in 2025 and for commissioning in 2027. They have not provided a launching or commissioning schedule from what I can find, but I can't see a reason for them not to maintain a similar production rate on the new FFMs. So they should complete the 12 new FFMs sometime in 2033/34.
I get that the new FFMs are bigger than the Mogamis, however much of that is simply stretch for larger weapons holdings and sensors. The baseline systems (propulsion, auxiliaries, navigation and possibly the combat system) would remain very similar, with some minor to moderate updates. The hull form has not been significanly modified (bit longer, bit fatter, but much the same shape). While there is some additional design time (hence a pause in production), I would be of the view the changes would not significantly extend the build time. Overall, I don't see them as much more than a second flight of Mogamis.
Of note, if weapons are a holdup on the schedule, we could always take a leaf out of Japan's book and receive them say without VLS and fit it later. Or as earlier suggested we could use some of the ANZAC fittings. The gun would be ideal to transfer for instance and I think it has been kept up to date with the modern standard.
As Reptilia states, the new FFM build program overlaps the required time for the first three Australian GPFs. There are two options, Japan gives us slots in their program and accepts a delay, or Mitsubishi increases their tempo. My view is that Mitsubishi could increase their tempo though expanded use of the Mitsui yard (which they purchased a few years back), so capacity on the steel side. There might be some issues with long lead parts, but engines should be available in the timeframe, combat system and radars remains to be seen.
The Austrakian government has been telegraphing the GPF schedule for ages, so I would view that Japan and Mitsubishi have an answer for it.
Interesting, I was curious as to why there was little news coming out about Raytheon local production progress, and Lockheed was getting all the attention. That's a very heavy executive removal, and other than the MD, all in HR, business development or corporate services. Five out of the nine seniors.
I wonder what was difficult in the terms of trade, intelectual property transfer perhaps? Schedule? Liability/indemnity?
I have a feeling the Japanese will be very accommodating if the FFM was selected. They have already offered building slots to Indonesia for four frigates. As far as I know those slots haven’t been taken up yet and knowing what the Indonesian procurement process is like they probably never will.
Everything I have read suggests Japan would be willing to move heaven and earth to win an order from Australia.
Japan eyes muscling up Australia's rebuilding navy - Asia Times
Japan is considering launching a bid to jointly develop its Mogami-class frigates with Australia. If selected, the joint project would enhance bilateral
asiatimes.com
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
The usual media sensationalism in this article but the corrosion issues does cause concern wrt the Collins class LOTE.
Unprecedented corrosion discovered on Collins Class submarines, half of fleet to remain out of service this year
Unprecedented corrosion discovered on Collins Class submarines, half of fleet to remain out of service this year
Sounds not too dissimilar to ANZAC, just this time we will be forced to spend the money to rectify rather than retire on economic grounds.
Corrosion can always be repaired, just it costs a lot. At least they are finding it, so the inspection program is robust.
Construction of the Hunter just seems to be slipping further down the track. I think they might have even initially promised construction would start in 2020 and then 2022. They did say construction would start this year but now the year is half over so who knows.
Marles did give an in service date of 2034 which suggests nobody is rushing to get these ships built.
Getting all 6 Hunters may be pretty optimistic. They were intended as ASW vessels but since they were selected we have seen the emergence of SSNs and a new class of GP frigate. Priorities might have shifted.
Sounds very similar to the ANZACs. Sounds like a number of Collins might end up sitting on hard stands waiting their turn to go through LOTE. Not the first time Australia will have gone through an extended period with most of the Collins fleet laid up.
With the way things are going I would be surprised if the Collins class lasted much beyond the mid thirties. The Australian government has already demonstrated that it is willing to allow ship numbers rundown for extended periods of time.
The pressure and expense of operating conventional and nuclear submarines together might not be achievable or practical.
I can’t help but feel that once an adequate number of SSNs are available the Collins class will be rapidly withdrawn from service.