Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[old faithful]

Maybe the F105 Cristobal Colon can be offered by the Spanish Armada and purchased as compensation for Navantias screw up with the supply class.
A 4th destroyer would come in real handy over the next decade if it can be upgraded to the same or similar spec as the current destroyers.
The first of the F110 Bonifaz class frigates will be launched next year with 4 more by 2029. + option for 2 more according to a source on wiki.
2030/31 wouldn’t look as bad with 4 upgraded Hobarts, 4-5 upgraded Anzacs, 1-2 new GPF, 5 Collins(2 upgraded), 6 Arafura, 12+ Capes.

That would be a great short term purchase for the RAN if it were possible.
In the mean time, we await a decision on the GPF. It does appear that the FFM is a real contender, and maybe announced much sooner than I thought. Having said that, I never expected the Barracuda class sub to win the bid either, so let's see what happens.
I am all for the idea of a 4th Hobart though, it makes a lot of sense for us atm.

 

[hauritz]

That would be a great short term purchase for the RAN if it were possible.
In the mean time, we await a decision on the GPF. It does appear that the FFM is a real contender, and maybe announced much sooner than I thought. Having said that, I never expected the Barracuda class sub to win the bid either, so let's see what happens.
I am all for the idea of a 4th Hobart though, it makes a lot of sense for us atm.

If making a captain's choice might not get us a new frigate any sooner but it would mean we could start preparing for an Australian build 6 months earlier than is currently planned. There might be some pretty good political reasons for going with Japan as well.

 

[iambuzzard]

That would be a great short term purchase for the RAN if it were possible.
In the mean time, we await a decision on the GPF. It does appear that the FFM is a real contender, and maybe announced much sooner than I thought. Having said that, I never expected the Barracuda class sub to win the bid either, so let's see what happens.
I am all for the idea of a 4th Hobart though, it makes a lot of sense for us atm.

That would right the past wrongs when our option for a fourth new build hull wasn't taken up. Here's hoping Canberra have a dose of common sense flu.

 

[old faithful]

That would right the past wrongs when our option for a fourth new build hull wasn't taken up. Here's hoping Canberra have a dose of common sense flu.

Yep it would be a huge help atm.
However, there was no suggestion of even a chance of this in 2 reviews, so I wouldn't even think about it happening.
I can't see a cheque book coming out for something like this unless it's offered publicly and RAN enthusiastically endorse it.

 

[SammyC]

Looking at the inflation and GDP figures released today, it appears that inflation is thoroughly under control (some may say a little too much), and the economy is being underpinned by government spending (who would have thought).

Suddenly stimulus investments are back in favour. Perhaps there might be some appetite for a few additional rapidly procured platforms after all. Bring out those check books.

Or alternatively another electricity bill offset for everybody, just in time for the next election.

 

[Volkodav]

That would be a great short term purchase for the RAN if it were possible.
In the mean time, we await a decision on the GPF. It does appear that the FFM is a real contender, and maybe announced much sooner than I thought. Having said that, I never expected the Barracuda class sub to win the bid either, so let's see what happens.
I am all for the idea of a 4th Hobart though, it makes a lot of sense for us atm.

It's not a Hobart though, it's the F-105, a completely different baseline, it's not even the same as the F-104 that the Hobart is based on.

To be honest, we would be better off getting something with greater commonality in systems. There's also the issue of crew.

The time for Hobart 4 even 5 and 6, was anytime between 2005 and 2016. To be really cheeky I would say the best time was the early 2000s when we realised the world wasn't going to be a safe happy cuddly place and we had billions in revenue being blown up the government's backside.

 

[iambuzzard]

It's not a Hobart though, it's the F-105, a completely different baseline, it's not even the same as the F-104 that the Hobart is based on.

To be honest, we would be better off getting something with greater commonality in systems. There's also the issue of crew.

The time for Hobart 4 even 5 and 6, was anytime between 2005 and 2016. To be really cheeky I would say the best time was the early 2000s when we realised the world wasn't going to be a safe happy cuddly place and we had billions in revenue being blown up the government's backside.

Thanks Volks, you're the voice of reason.

 

[Reptilia]

It's not a Hobart though, it's the F-105, a completely different baseline, it's not even the same as the F-104 that the Hobart is based on.

To be honest, we would be better off getting something with greater commonality in systems. There's also the issue of crew.

The time for Hobart 4 even 5 and 6, was anytime between 2005 and 2016. To be really cheeky I would say the best time was the early 2000s when we realised the world wasn't going to be a safe happy cuddly place and we had billions in revenue being blown up the government's backside.

Thought the Hobart was a cross of the F104 and F105 with the F105 overall more similar in spec and would be the easiest to update.


‘The Hobart Class – Differences from the F100 Class
Navantia’s F104 ship design is the basis for the AWD. The F104 baseline is being updated for AWD to include;
Key F105 features,Australian Combat system modifications, and Selected platform upgrades that are unique to the Hobart Class.

These features are summarised as follows:

F105 MODIFICATIONS
More efficient and powerful diesel engines coupled with improved fuel tank arrangements will provide increased range,
The inclusion of a bow thruster will improve manoeuvrability in harbours;
Improvements to underway replenishment arrangements for manpower efficiencies;
Changes to funnel tops to improve the ship’s air wake; and
Bunk size increases to improve habitability.

AWD COMBAT SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
The Hobart Class will use the Aegis Weapon System Baseline 7.1and the AN/SPY-1D(V) Phased Array Radar.
The Under Sea Warfare capability will be upgraded by:
Enhanced Anti Submarine Warfare capabilities and the addition of a torpedo defence system;
ASW decoys for torpedo defence;
Enhanced undersea communications;
Integration of the MU90 torpedo

OTHER CHANGES INCLUDE:
Modification of the MK45 gun and Gun Fire Control System, including provision for Extended Range Munitions (ERM);
Addition of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC);
Modification of the IFF UPX-29 to the current tactical standard;
Addition of an Horizon Search Radar (HSR) for improved anti-ship missile defence;
Upgrades to the Surface-to-Surface Missile System to improve target selectivity in congested water, littoral and coastal operations;
Upgrades to the Very Short Range Defence system to improve its integration and utility against asymmetric surface threats;
Upgrades to the Electronic Warfare system, including the addition of electronic attack capabilities;
Addition of X/Ka Satcom and INMARSAT Fleet Broadband and INMARSAT C capability;
Improved Infrared Search and Track capabilities;
Improved Electro-Optical Surveillance capability;
Addition of Nulka Launchers for active missile decoys;

AWD-UNIQUE PLATFORM MODIFICATIONS
The ship’s displacement will be increased to 7,000 tonnes for an improved service life margin.
Cold weather operation will be improved to allow for deployment into Australia’s southern waters.
The hangar will be modified to accommodate a range of helicopters.
Other modifications include:
Increased total cold room capacity for improved endurance;
Incorporation of a fixed gas detection system to warn of the presence of harmful gases in compartments where personnel exposure risks exist;
Modification of the 220V/50Hz network to 240V/50 Hz, incorporation of Residual Current Devices (RCD) and the Australian pin configuration for general purpose outlets, and
Modification of existing stowage, and increases in the overall number of stowage facilities, for thermal protective suit and life raft containers.’

https://www.ausawd.com/content.aspx?p=97

 

[Reptilia]

Japan, Australia look to cooperate on long-range missile capability

Japan and Australia agree they will enhance cooperation on long-range missile capabilities, in their latest efforts to cope with China's expanding military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

english.kyodonews.net

Looks like the Japanese long range missiles are a real possibility now, more than likely the new Type 12 under development to be tested.

Japan’s MoD Reveals New Details on the improved Type 12 Missile - Naval News

Japan's Ministry of Defense unveiled a new photo of the upgraded version of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile (SSM) that is currently under development.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Going Boeing]

Ben Hudson has been sacked by BAES Australia due to his lack of focus on the Nuclear Submarine project - it looks like the Government/RAN are demanding maximum effort from all involved to ensure that this project is successful.

It sounds like Craig Lockhart is a worthy replacement as CEO.

Defence company boss ousted after tensions over big contracts

https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/our-company/our-leadership

 

[iambuzzard]

Ben Hudson has been sacked by BAES Australia due to his lack of focus on the Nuclear Submarine project - it looks like the Government/RAN are demanding maximum effort from all involved to ensure that this project is successful.

It sounds like Craig Lockhardt is a worthy replacement as CEO.

Defence company boss ousted after tensions over big contracts

https://www.baesystems.com/en-aus/our-company/our-leadership

A little off topic, but that's the first time I've heard the term "Chief People Officer" in referring to Angela Wiggins on BAe's board. Are we starting to see a culture shift?

 

[76mmGuns]

A little off topic, but that's the first time I've heard the term "Chief People Officer" in referring to Angela Wiggins on BAe's board. Are we starting to see a culture shift?

Sounds like a title you'd give a 5yo child when playing a game tbh. It's HR head, but possibly more? Given her resume, it's not a title I'd have expected

From BAE website:

"Angela Wiggins is the Chief People Officer at BAE Systems Australia.

Angela is a senior executive with 20 years of corporate and defence experience. Angela has been with BAE Systems Australia since 2009 and was appointed as our Chief People Officer in January 2023.

In her role as Chief People Officer, Angela is responsible for leading the human resources function to help enable operational performance by supporting a healthy, safe and high-performing workforce of more than 5,500 employees across Australia.

Angela leads a team of professionals who provide a range of people solutions and services, including people business partnering, workforce planning, talent management, recruitment, reward, learning and development, diversity and inclusion, and culture and change.

Prior to her current role, Angela was our Chief Counsel, where she led a range of functions, including legal, security, export control, business continuity management, risk and insurance, records management and business assurance.

Before joining BAE Systems Australia, Angela was a Partner at Fisher Jeffries in the firm’s corporate and commercial practice.

Angela attended the University of Adelaide and obtained her Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law with First Class Honours in 2002. She is also a graduate of the Institute of Directors and Companies Secretaries course."

 

[iambuzzard]

Sounds like a title you'd give a 5yo child when playing a game tbh. It's HR head, but possibly more? Given her resume, it's not a title I'd have expected

From BAE website:

"Angela Wiggins is the Chief People Officer at BAE Systems Australia.

Angela is a senior executive with 20 years of corporate and defence experience. Angela has been with BAE Systems Australia since 2009 and was appointed as our Chief People Officer in January 2023.

In her role as Chief People Officer, Angela is responsible for leading the human resources function to help enable operational performance by supporting a healthy, safe and high-performing workforce of more than 5,500 employees across Australia.

Angela leads a team of professionals who provide a range of people solutions and services, including people business partnering, workforce planning, talent management, recruitment, reward, learning and development, diversity and inclusion, and culture and change.

Prior to her current role, Angela was our Chief Counsel, where she led a range of functions, including legal, security, export control, business continuity management, risk and insurance, records management and business assurance.

Before joining BAE Systems Australia, Angela was a Partner at Fisher Jeffries in the firm’s corporate and commercial practice.

Angela attended the University of Adelaide and obtained her Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Law with First Class Honours in 2002. She is also a graduate of the Institute of Directors and Companies Secretaries course."

I mean't absolutely no disrespect to Ms Wiggins whose credentials are exceptional. It was the terminology I was referring to. I haven't heard it used before.

 

[Bob53]

I wouldn't rule this completely out. The acquisition of a ship from Spain. Or a lease.
From what I hear Spain may be interested of moving one along. The Americans home port several aegis destroyers in spain, so the transfer of a single hull isn't a huge issue for their region, they have new Aegis ships coming on line. They would rather fund new F-110 hulls than refurb existing. Spain isn't facing quite the same naval threat in its region, and there are other assets. Australia might be able to get it for Spanish refurbishment costs. I wouldn't rule out even the temporary basing of a ship in Australia like with the AOR. The hobarts are the heart of Australia's surface combatant capability. We have training/sailors/logistics etc for them, in time of conflict, there is even a small pool of those that have left the service that could be reactivated (by 2027 that would be 10 years of crewing experience to draw from).


For the entire southern Hemisphere, Australia is the only Aegis navy. So if things get orbital, We are the only ones with any sort of coverage to take out anything that has the perigee of its orbit in the southern hemisphere (which is extremely likely in a conflict, that China would shift its orbital assets to this kind of orbit to provide more time over the SCS/US/Europe while making it harder to hit from assets based in the northern hemisphere). Australia's longitude is also very favourable. Ideally we would have some sort of Aegis ship based out of Perth.

It also wouldn't even need to be combat damage. Operating at high tempo, things break and get worn much faster, an accident, storm damage, wear and tear, with only 3 hulls, capability becomes very fickle. Remembering that we will have a huge upgrade program which will result in most of them being out of the water, so for much over the next few years we will have more like two ships sort of available.


Things are absolutely ramping up, It has been rumoured that the Japanese wanted a more aggressive delivery schedule, particularly to seal the deal with Australia. That seems to be on the cards now. IMO even if the Australia-japan deal doesn't happen, Japan absolutely should build as many as it can as quick as it can.

Also I wonder if to help offset the overseas mogami builds, if Japan would accept some amphibious landing/transport ships built in Australia.


While we should avoid politics, I actually feel that Labor and the Coalition are now pretty friendly on defence. I don't see them axing each others programs, the fall out from alliance partners and industry would kill them. That doesn't mean it can't happen, but I expect that they would rather deal with each other than with the Greens, Teals are pure wild cards, and some may be more anti-defence than the greens. Particularly on defence matters, which may require execution over multiple terms of government, of which many of those may be flash in the pans.

Yes not getting into specific politics but if the recent commentary About a minority government after the next election…but if that happens it’s makes things very complex to move forward with any current plan. Some of the shopping list items being thrown around are very expensive. It may lead to a very short term parliament like we had a bit over 10 years ago.

 

[Bob53]

Looking at the inflation and GDP figures released today, it appears that inflation is thoroughly under control (some may say a little too much), and the economy is being underpinned by government spending (who would have thought).

Suddenly stimulus investments are back in favour. Perhaps there might be some appetite for a few additional rapidly procured platforms after all. Bring out those check books.

Or alternatively another electricity bill offset for everybody, just in time for the next election.

Apparently current gov spend is higher than during COVID stimulus..

 

[hauritz]

Japan, Australia look to cooperate on long-range missile capability

Japan and Australia agree they will enhance cooperation on long-range missile capabilities, in their latest efforts to cope with China's expanding military presence in the Indo-Pacific region.

english.kyodonews.net

Looks like the Japanese long range missiles are a real possibility now, more than likely the new Type 12 under development to be tested.

Japan’s MoD Reveals New Details on the improved Type 12 Missile - Naval News

Japan's Ministry of Defense unveiled a new photo of the upgraded version of the Type 12 surface-to-ship missile (SSM) that is currently under development.

www.navalnews.com

I admit I get confused with missiles. If Australia were to buy an almost completely MOTS version of the latest Mogami frigate it comes equipped with the Type 12 missile. The Japanese missile is about twice the size of the NSM. The upgraded version of the Type 12 is to have its range extended from 200km to 900km and perhaps eventually up to 1500km which seems to put it more into Tomahawk territory.

I can see how this might appeal to Australia with the Tomahawk optimised for land attack and the Type 12 for the long range antiship role.

Makes the Upgraded Mogami sound less and less like a tier 2 ship but rather an extremely powerful asset capable of raining death on ships 900 kms to 1500 kms away.

 

[iambuzzard]

I admit I get confused with missiles. If Australia were to buy an almost completely MOTS version of the latest Mogami frigate it comes equipped with the Type 12 missile. The Japanese missile is about twice the size of the NSM. The upgraded version of the Type 12 is to have its range extended from 200km to 900km and perhaps eventually up to 1500km which seems to put it more into Tomahawk territory.

I can see how this might appeal to Australia with the Tomahawk optimised for land attack and the Type 12 for the long range antiship role.

Makes the Upgraded Mogami sound less and less like a tier 2 ship but rather an extremely powerful asset capable of raining death on ships 900 kms to 1500 kms away.

It certainly sounds like the Upgraded Mogami is going to be a GPF on steroids, more like a Tier 1. Here's hoping Canberra choose a ship based on it's merits and ability to defend us and not for political expediency. With the latest developments in the South China Sea we may not make it that far.

 

[Reptilia]

I admit I get confused with missiles. If Australia were to buy an almost completely MOTS version of the latest Mogami frigate it comes equipped with the Type 12 missile. The Japanese missile is about twice the size of the NSM. The upgraded version of the Type 12 is to have its range extended from 200km to 900km and perhaps eventually up to 1500km which seems to put it more into Tomahawk territory.

I can see how this might appeal to Australia with the Tomahawk optimised for land attack and the Type 12 for the long range antiship role.

Makes the Upgraded Mogami sound less and less like a tier 2 ship but rather an extremely powerful asset capable of raining death on ships 900 kms to 1500 kms away.

I think the current type 12 is surface to ship only (future version up to 1,500km), the current ship to ship ssm for the FFMs is the type 17. (400km)
Looks like the future improved type 12 will cover all 3 domains.

 

[Volkodav]

Tier 1 and tier 2 are labels not categories and unfortunately people are conflating capabilities because they do not understand what goes into a warship design.

A well armed high end GP frigate is not a high end ASW or air defence combatant, no matter what it is armed with.

How do we know this?

Easy, the parent navies are building actual high end ASW and air defence combatants alongside the GP frigates we are looking at.

At the same time, and OPV with a high end radar and a VLS is not a GP frigate, it is an over capitalised OPV.

Gaffa taping extra gear on it will never make it as survivable or versatile as a purpose designed GP frigate.

Look at Samuel B Roberts

The Day Frigate Samuel B. Roberts Was Mined - USNI News

The following is an account of the Iranian mine strike on the frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) which originally ran in Proceedings in 2013.

news.usni.org

Would an OPV, ANZAC or even a Hobart survive what an Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate did? The crew performed heroically and professionally but would a crew of the same calibre have a chance in a tarted up OPV?

Structural strength, subdivision, redundancy, all play a part, things that are not factored into cheap designs because they are expensive. Crew size matters, not enough trained people means no chance for damage control in even a well designed ship.

The leading GP frigate contenders will be a bucket load better than the OPVs, and the ANZACs, but likely not as good as a Hobart, and nowhere near as survivable as a Hunter.

All of this is before you start looking at signatures, sensors, etc. how well they can see and hear.

When people start saying tier 2 GP frigates are as good as tier 1 ASW frigates because of their size and potential armament, we are back in the situation where successive governments were able to pretend a Patrol Frigate, after being upgraded to a GP frigate, could replace a DDG.

When you realise the DDGs were bought because the DLGs the RAN probably really needed, were seen as unaffordable, you start to get the picture.

Conflating OPVs with patrol frigates, with GP frigates, with ASW frigates, with air defence frigates, with destroyers, and you end up with arm chair experts and novices (including politicians and journalists), believing OPVs are cruisers.

Hell just look at the NSM armed Cape some were getting sexually aroused over a few months back.

 

[SammyC]

I think the current type 12 is surface to ship only (future version up to 1,500km), the current ship to ship ssm for the FFMs is the type 17. (400km)
Looks like the future improved type 12 will cover all 3 domains.

It will be interesting to see how this missile family develops. On the assumption that Aust picks the Mogami, the type 17 comes as the default inbuilt anti ship missile. It's cannister based, so sits on the upper deck.

The type 17 is a variant of the type 12, which is an iteration of the type 88/90, which goes back to the 1980's. Mitsubishi have been making this family for along time, so it has a mature lineage. The type 17 is simply a marinised version of the type 12 with an improved range.

It was originally built as an anti amphiboius defence weapon. Truck mounted, able to be positioned away from the coast to avoid naval bombardment, and attack enemy sea forces in the delicate littoral landing stage. So it has always been anti ship focused from the get go. There is an air released version (type 93) of this missile as well, so all three services use the same basic design.

Japan is very sensistive to shore invasion, particularly on its remote islands, so it's no surprise this is the missile type they have developed and maintained indigenously.

It is a jet engined, radar guided, contour/ocean hugging cruise missile, and is perhaps a best comparison to the harpoon. The shore based type 12 is probably similar to how Aust would employ HIMARS with PRSM in the future (or possibly NSM fitted Bushmasters), and the type 17 aligns with NSM. The type 93 is how we would use LRASM or JSM on aircraft.

Japan has committed to a major upgrade of the type 12/17/93, going for longer range and adopting a stealth design. This is yet to be released, but looks promising. If it does, it might compete strongly with the NSM/JSM/LRASM platforms as an alternate cruise missile. But it needs to proove itself first.

For the naval application, I would view that the NSM is currently better and more mature than the type 17, despite its shorter range. NSM will undoubtedly get some range upgrades over time to compensate for this. Aust has seemingly placed all its cards on the NSM, so I can't see another equivalent missile replacing it in the near (or far) future.

I also can't see an application where you would have both on the same ship, mostly as they occupy the same real estate.

It might be an option if they are interchangeable (i.e use the same cannister). Japan have stated they are looking to introduce the NSM into their own fleet, so perhaps this could be an outcome. This would be very useful as it would enable two suppliy chains and double the logistics.

This last point is an intriguing aspect of missile harmonisation. There are currently multiple projects in progress to cross use different missile systems. PAC3s in MK41 VLS, AMRAAM ER in NASAMS, and all the Frankenstein stuff going on in Ukraine. In an environment where missile production is constrained, this a useful strategy. It enables you to utilise what ever missile happens to be available and close by. Mix and match

I think we should watch out for more of this interchangeably trend, particularly with Japan, and possibly with South Korea.