Actually that bit of the article surprised me the least. WA already has a lot of work coming its way and it complicates things a lot more if you have to also rush a new frigate into service. Six new GPFs and the arrival of the first Hunters before the mid 30s is pretty crucial.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Maybe 3 RAN 2029/early 2030s, 3 RNZS mid 2030s + 8 built in Australia from 2029.
What NZ does is up to NZ. It wouldn’t be a bad thing if they teamed with Australia on this but the priority for Australia is to simply get its own ships in the water.
There is a 100% chance that a journalist has confused Hunter Class with GPF numbers. See above for many members thoughts on certain credibility for some Media writers
Anything else is just conspiracy or wild assertions.
GFP 3 build overseas. 6-8 in Aus (numbers not confirmed)
Hunters 6 build in Aus (Batch 1 is signed for with 3 ships to be built, batch 2 yet to be signed for)
Anything else is just conspiracy or wild assertions.
GFP 3 build overseas. 6-8 in Aus (numbers not confirmed)
Hunters 6 build in Aus (Batch 1 is signed for with 3 ships to be built, batch 2 yet to be signed for)
Similar to @spoz 's view, there are no question on ability (speed/quality) of Japanese shipbuilding. However, the pace that you see JMSDF acquire and put into service the Mogami is unlikely to be replicable for RAN due to system integration challenges.
JMSDF uses Japanese specific sub-systems (e.g OPY-2 radar, OYQ-1 combat systems, OQQ-25 sonar etc). I would imagine that these would be replaced. Even if they are not replaced and adopted wholesale, translation of both the systems and training curriculum would take up time. JMSDF don't have these constraints, and these sub-systems are evolutionary and already in service with their fleet.
This is indeed a significant advantage (automation). But this is also a double edge sword. I brought up earlier that Asian navies due to manpower constraints (e.g Singapore, Japan) have adopted a higher degree of automation and would like have different definitions of what is acceptable risk when it comes to DC.
Is this something RAN is willing to accept without changes?
The question is whether RAN wants to be the first customer of a highly complex warship from a country not known to have done naval exports. Their recent export was the Teresa Magbanua-class patrol vessels to the Philippines funded by JICA. From all accounts, the transaction seems to be smooth, but they are not complex vessels.
Personally, I hope they (Japan) will succeed as a first sale to a Western country will have tremendous strategic implications. It will also set Japan off on the path of a credible alternative for military hardware.
However, the facts remain that Australia would likely be a very demanding first customer. I am less certain about the politics of it all tbh, since I am not Australian.
Another thing to consider is if a hot war breaks out over Taiwan perhaps well before 2029, a half built RAN frigate in a Japanese yard would be a tasty and static target for PLA ballistic missiles. Germany is on the other side of the world, and I doubt Russia is thinking about marching to Berlin when it can't even march to Kyiv. To me it wouldn't be all that surprising if they picked a 3-ship offshore build of both designs for redundancy and to get more hulls into the water more quickly, from there they could evaluate both in RAN service for a few years before judging the best for the final five Australian builds. Doubles the speed of delivery of the first 6 ships, improves relations with both countries and hedges Australia's bets with concerns over the difficulty of integrating Australian sub-systems and operating a new Japanese combat system/sensors on the Mogami combined with the inexperience of the Japanese in defence exports. If all fears are allayed then proceed with the presumably superior Mogami, if it doesn't go smoothly there is another adequate, presumably less risky design to fall back on for the Australian-build. I understand this would leave a 3-ship fleet of an 'orphan' design and ideally all 11 would be identical, but they would still be capable warships and it would be no different to operating the 3 ships of the Hobart class in terms of economy of scale.
The ANZACs worked very well, arguably part of the reason we are in this pickle is they were too good.
The we're good enough to be extensively upgraded and cover the roles and responsibilities of much larger ships for a longer than originally planned service life.
I should qualify that considering how they were used that the RAN should have had something more like the FFG-07, or even the cancelled DDL instead of the ANZACs.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
You're right there. The design looks packed up already. I prefer the Evolved Mogami as there appears room to add more equipment. If you look at the Meko design it's almost as crammed with "stuff" as the Anzacs are after multiple upgrades.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
The thing is the Evolved Mogami is a much bigger ship with room for expansion. We don't want them top heavy and looking like cruise liners. Radar cross section minimisation is paramonut.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And they were building FFG-7s at the time the Anzacs were ordered. Look at what Spain done, built 6 FFG-7s and by then had the knowledge too design and build a decent successor that suited their requirements. We build Anzacs that are not suitable as a starting point for AWDs, so yet again we are looking at other Navy's designs.
Wouldn’t surprise me. The west has never built a complex warship, and at presently has no facility capable of doing so - they are struggling with basic as bat sh*t Arafuras (ASC didn’t struggle to build them; that was not the issue). I would think we would be at least 10 years away from delivery of the first west built frigate, even if the order was placed tomorrow. If you truly want to start plugging a potential capability gap that is probably quite a bit too long
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Even if hypothetically we ordered 3 each from Germany and Japan would Government budget for them?
A couple of Greens politicians would have a litter of kittens if we got 6 built overseas. We can't have weapons to defend ourselves according to them.
A couple of Greens politicians would have a litter of kittens if we got 6 built overseas. We can't have weapons to defend ourselves according to them.
So what does a tier two look like?
A larger ANZAC or a smaller Hobart in size?????
We will potentially have 9 larger vessels in the Hunters and Hobarts.
7 to 11 ships
7 go big
11, not so big
All offerings will be more substantial than the current ANZAC's
time to service will play a big part I'd suspect
Cheers S
I re-read the article and the writer does seem to be referring to the GPF having the first 6 built overseas.There is a 100% chance that a journalist has confused Hunter Class with GPF numbers. See above for many members thoughts on certain credibility for some Media writers
Anything else is just conspiracy or wild assertions.
GFP 3 build overseas. 6-8 in Aus (numbers not confirmed)
Hunters 6 build in Aus (Batch 1 is signed for with 3 ships to be built, batch 2 yet to be signed for)
It actually does make sense to do it that way. The first 6 ships are urgent. The entire ANZAC fleet will need to be replaced ASAP. Building the first 6 ships overseas would buy more time to prepare for Australian construction. In the case of Japan winning the contract it will be a huge learning curve for them and Australia to set up ship production in Australia. Just for starters there are so many language and cultural issues to deal with.
If the Germans win it opens the possibility that the first 6 ships will be German built A-200s and the Australian builds could be the A-210.
Doing more reading between the lines it seems that the navy might be the ones making the final call. That being the case I wouldn't write the Germans off as a mere stalking horse,
Everything is speculation at the moment.
Underway
Active Member
Germany is lower risk and lower cost. For a Tier 2 combatant cost matters a lot I would expect. You want to spend your money on the high end warfighters.
Also less crew is the wrong way to go now. Head of the French navy just recently stated that they bet on lower crew sizes and after their Red Sea experience they realized they bet wrong. US is increasing crew size expectations on LCS and Constellation class due to their same experience.
Also less crew is the wrong way to go now. Head of the French navy just recently stated that they bet on lower crew sizes and after their Red Sea experience they realized they bet wrong. US is increasing crew size expectations on LCS and Constellation class due to their same experience.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Are they increasing crew size mostly due to crew fatigues issues or damage control? Not aware of any naval ship damage during Red Sea operation. I do recall stories about crew fatigue during LCS patrols. Their small crew size combined with the notoriously unreliable propulsion system and other stuff was wearing crews down quickly.
Underway
Active Member
Exhaustion and combat effectiveness was the feedback from the French and USN combat experience. Now throw battle damage on that after crews have been trying to stand 1 in 2 for weeks.
To tie it into Australian purchases the lower crew model is great for a peace time navy or low intensity missions. It's not for a war time navy. Automation is good when you are close to home and can get help (like almost all Japanese missions). You gotta fix it yourself if you're far from home. Are these ships expected to sail far from home/help?
To tie it into Australian purchases the lower crew model is great for a peace time navy or low intensity missions. It's not for a war time navy. Automation is good when you are close to home and can get help (like almost all Japanese missions). You gotta fix it yourself if you're far from home. Are these ships expected to sail far from home/help?
Last edited:
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I don’t mean this meanly but, as an outsider looking in, and noting the reported uniformed strength of the RAN and its trend over recent years, do we have any choice?