iambuzzard
Active Member
It probably is too good to be true. I don't think the Koreans could do those modifications and reduce the crewing that quickly. Anyway, if they've managed it it can only be a good thing in the current climate.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
It’s looking optimistic.
the key apparent contenders are offering 32-VLS solutions.
i think the feature that sneaks underneath the sonar (pun intended) is towed variable depth sonar.
this i think is an essential capability, but I don’t see it mentioned much. Perhaps I’m missing it?
I think a GPF without towed variable depth sonar will be a mistake.
the key apparent contenders are offering 32-VLS solutions.
i think the feature that sneaks underneath the sonar (pun intended) is towed variable depth sonar.
this i think is an essential capability, but I don’t see it mentioned much. Perhaps I’m missing it?
I think a GPF without towed variable depth sonar will be a mistake.
The ability to operate a towed array sonar is one of the core requirements of SEA3000.
Both the Mogami and FFX II and III have one as part of their baseline designs.
The Egyptian version of the MEKO also has one.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
I can't see them getting those modifications done and 3 ships in the water in 5-6 years.
Unmodified ships to the existing design sure, but not with major changes that only exist on Powerpoint at this time.
SiVisPacemParaBellum
New Member
Which build is behind schedule and who told you that they couldn't meet the deadline?
My bad-TKMS not behind schedule but some German programs are, k130 b2, (batch 1 was tkms-blohm+voss.)
Current F126 build and next years F127 build in Kiel, Hamburg, Wolgast, Wismar makes the build of 3xA200 with fitout at another yard difficult in the 2026-2032 timeframe.
Not a good sign they were a no show IODS 2024.
InterestedParty
Active Member
Could the choice between Korean and Japanese offers come down to which country we would prefer to have a close strategic relationship with.
I would have though that the answer to this question would be Japan, especially after the Soryu issue and how that went down.
I would have though that the answer to this question would be Japan, especially after the Soryu issue and how that went down.
Japan and Korea are the second and third most powerful economies in that region. They are both mportant trading partners and of course can be seen as a counter to Chinese expansionism. Certainly Germany and Spain don't have the same political clout.
The relationship between the Japanese and Koreans hasn't always been the best, although they have improved in recent times. I think one obstacle Australia will need to overcome is the risk of damaging relationships with whichever country loses this competition.
The Japanese didn't take not winning the submarine contract well, but that might have been a blessing in disguise. Imagine the political fallout if we ended up doing to the Japanese what we did to France.
Although many of the GPF exemplars seem to be growing in size, displacement and lethality, I am not sure whether these factors will really matter a great deal for the selection process. The emphasis seems to be on delivery of minimum viable capability to budget and schedule along with a viable plan for construction in Australia.
And now the govt has declared a $16 bn budget surplus, thanks largely to not making any big purchases and delaying making any announcements or decisions on the GPF, the process can be delayed again until an election announcement. The government is buying....time, and I guess any party would probably do the same or similar.
I think you are right. I suspect the fancy updated options provide a guide as to what might be offered for vessels 7-11 (if a base class is selected). ships 1-6 will be vanilla flavoured
I am going off statements from the relevant admiral (quoted much earlier in this thread). I think they want the Australian yard to start by replicating the OS build. Plans might change.
Nice war chest for an election year, or a small down payment on the $900 billion debt. I'd personally like another $300 off my power bill.
Perhaps there is a spare billion for an additional early GPF.
iambuzzard
Active Member
An extra GPF would be good. Mind you, the exercise started off with projected costs around $500 million and up. It's certainly been on steroids lately.
The minimum changes required, i.e. support system, changing language on consoles and crew interfaces, are actually pretty involved and difficult.
They may actually be more complex and difficult than integrating already in-service, fully supported systems.
They may actually be more complex and difficult than integrating already in-service, fully supported systems.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Seems very likely so is Japan or SKorea able to partner and accomplish this task best? This effects delivery/IOC. Both nations are offering attractive proposals but Japan has a program in progress and given the sub loss years ago, a second loss will be a significant diplomatic problem. SKorea has already obtained some decent military kit orders albeit not the quantities they expected. Upping the numbers would ease the hurt upon losing the frigate contest.
SiVisPacemParaBellum
New Member
The delays with Batch 2 aren't the fault of tkMS tho.
F126 is a project by NVL which has got no relevance for tkMS-owned yards.
I can asure you that tkMS has got too few orders and that they can deliver those 3 A-200s within the requested timeframe.
Ok cheers,
I assume that they would be built in Bremerhaven and moved to Kiel for fitout just like the Egyptian A200s?
Anyway it is what it is. If he has got his settings right in regards to the effectiveness of the various missile types it might still be interesting.