deleted duplicate
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Isn’t the development of SMRs mean to drastically reduce the costs?
what makes sense Australia is to continue to build hunter hulls and update them for the next 30-40 years. It’s a large versatile hull. But of course we will pick something else and waste billions going no where.
I think it's fair to assume that the next election will be called, before the next budget is due, as it will likely be in deficit.
An announcement of the GPF would be called before the election so Labor could claim to be strong on defence.
I am betting the election will be called after Australia day, maybe early Feb next year.
An announcement of the GPF would be called before the election so Labor could claim to be strong on defence.
I am betting the election will be called after Australia day, maybe early Feb next year.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Frankly I am more concerned about Australia spending significant coin establishing another/new naval shipyard, and then there being a major bun fight over ensuring sufficient naval construction orders get placed to keep the yards active. That or some bright parochial pollie will decide that their state should get some of the defence funding largess and try and direct funding to establish yet another yard facility for orders.
If the coalition get in th smartest thing they can do for RAN capability is STFU and continue on.
Not beyond the realms of possibilit.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Regarding SMR’s please keep in mind that at least from what I can see, they are small only when compared to a regular commercial grid scale reactor.
The building footprint for a commercial SMR is still significantly larger than what would be available on a surface combatant unless something has changed since I last looked.
The building footprint for a commercial SMR is still significantly larger than what would be available on a surface combatant unless something has changed since I last looked.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
If, in the distant future, the RAN was to end up with 6 Hunters, 3-6 AWD‘s based on the Hunter hull and 11 Evolved Mogamis, they would enjoy an improved logistics and support structure - especially on the power plant side as the Mogami uses the same gas turbine (MT-30) as the Hunter.
The radar systems (CEA) and combat system (AEGIS/9LV) in the Hunter would obviously form the basis of what’s required in an AWD variant based on that hull.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
And a fairly potent combat force. If the build for optionally crewed missile boats, and that's what they are, is substantially increased we will have a very robust fleet that should deter any potential aggressor (we hope)!
Personally, I hope things continue as is. I think if the coalition came to power, we may see alot of purchases without much thought process.
From 2025 we should start to see quite a bit of new kit and most of the big items will be on order, I think labor can get alot done, streamline a few things with a second term prior to any major shift in capability in 2029/2030.
Coalition, 2025-2029, good, bad, about the same?
GPF selection
Streamlining maintenance
Hobart class upgrades
Getting Supply class back into service
AS9/AS10/IFV/CRV/Bushmaster etc production
Airforce upgrades
Overseeing LOTE
Building infrastructure for GWEO
Upgrading multiple defence precincts
Keeping the budget in check without massive blowouts
Bolstering Relationships Oceania/Asia and elsewhere
Etc etc
From 2025 we should start to see quite a bit of new kit and most of the big items will be on order, I think labor can get alot done, streamline a few things with a second term prior to any major shift in capability in 2029/2030.
Coalition, 2025-2029, good, bad, about the same?
GPF selection
Streamlining maintenance
Hobart class upgrades
Getting Supply class back into service
AS9/AS10/IFV/CRV/Bushmaster etc production
Airforce upgrades
Overseeing LOTE
Building infrastructure for GWEO
Upgrading multiple defence precincts
Keeping the budget in check without massive blowouts
Bolstering Relationships Oceania/Asia and elsewhere
Etc etc
It's going to be a busy four years. We will be in a very different place by the end of it.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
You can bet on that, but I wouldn't be going too hard with the bookies just yet. The budget has been brought forward to March 25 to allow the government to drop it and run to an election. That's been the plan for quite some months. While Phillip Coorey speculated in the AFR last fortnight that the looming "deficits as far as the eye can see" might cause Labor to go early, he also notes WA has an election on March 8. Albo could call the election after then and hold it in April, with the budget then being delayed. That's more likely than a February election, I would suggest. Then again, deficits don't concern the average punter as much as many commentators think. And Labor may feel it needs the election sweeteners that the budget is sure to include to give it the best chance. I'd say Labor hasn't actually decided itself at this point.
Like most elections, people have largely decided already who they will vote for in the next one. Once people's minds are made up, they are unlikely to change it. Polls mean very little.
It will be interesting which ever way it goes, and I really can't see the ADF changing too much either way.
It will be interesting which ever way it goes, and I really can't see the ADF changing too much either way.
Personally I am sick of all the chopping and changing. We need to just settle on a plan. The Coalition hasn't really said anything that makes me think there will be a radical change. If anything they might restore a few of the projects that were cut by the current government but the broad strokes of the defence policy seem to have been accepted.
As much as the surface combatant review and the defence strategy/IIP took forever to be released, I think the government did a good job in analysing and then developing a robust plan. There were no captains picks or blatent pork barrelling that would not stand the critique of the opposition.
People may have been disappointed with certain aspects including the cancellation of some projects or the schedule, however the fact that it is sustainably funded and has general bipartisan support is commendable. It means that the chopping and changing should be less over the next cycle.
‘JOURNALIST: Inaudible
MARLES: At the beginning of this year, in response to the Surface Fleet Review, we announced the future structure of our Navy surface fleet, and that as part of that there would be a general purpose frigate. And we wanted to bring a new general purpose frigate into operation as soon as possible, within this decade, which is a very fast acquisition. So, the first point in answer to your question is that what we are seeking in terms of acquiring a general purpose frigate is to have a very speedy acquisition. Because of that, what we did was name at that point a number of companies with a number of designs of ships that were currently in service, with the prospect of them being initially built overseas, and then that build being transferred to Australia as a means by which we would be able to acquire an existing capability in the world quickly. As you say, we have down selected now to two companies who are providing three designs amongst those two, but one of those is Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Mogami class frigate which is operated, which is in service now. It's a very capable platform, and we will now work very closely with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries in terms of their bid. Our intention is to make a final decision in respect of this through the course of next year. So this has a little time to run, but not a lot of time because at the heart of what we are seeking to do is to have a new- the first of those- general purpose frigates actually in service in the 2020s. But we're obviously very impressed with the Mogami class frigate and what Mitsubishi has presented so far. We were pleased to announce that they were part of our down selection, and we will be working closely with them going forward. I think that brings to an end the press conference again. If I could again thank Lloyd and Gen for being here today. Thank you all for attending, we very much appreciate it.’
Interesting, 3 designs.
Probably… A200(Modified for RAN)+Mogami+Upgraded Mogami
Think it’s unlikely A200(South Africa/Algeria/Egypt variants) would be in the mix or the A210.
Last edited:
Also says “actually in service in the 2020s” which is a stretch but if a bidder is allowed to offer a leased vessel that starts to sound more achievable.
There is some very loose language there.
I know he was standing next to the Japanese defence minister at the time, but that is a significantly biased answer to the Mitsubishi proposal (didn't mention TKMS once). Agree armchair, that the "2020s" is a lot different to previous language of "2029". Seems to give leeway to an earlier rather than later timeframe for delivery.
I am perplexed by the two companies, three designs point. I thought it would be two companies, two designs or two companies, four designs. People will read all kinds of things into that statement.
He left a final decision to the "course of next year" so maybe less chance of a pre election announcement.
I know he was standing next to the Japanese defence minister at the time, but that is a significantly biased answer to the Mitsubishi proposal (didn't mention TKMS once). Agree armchair, that the "2020s" is a lot different to previous language of "2029". Seems to give leeway to an earlier rather than later timeframe for delivery.
I am perplexed by the two companies, three designs point. I thought it would be two companies, two designs or two companies, four designs. People will read all kinds of things into that statement.
He left a final decision to the "course of next year" so maybe less chance of a pre election announcement.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Sammy, I reckon it's the Mogami and Evolved Mogami from MHI and the A200 from TKMS. 2020s service points to us getting an earlier Mogami or more from the current production run with subsequent hulls being the Evolved version. With that option, training could start almost immediately on existing hulls. On the face of it considering the presence of the Japanese defence minister, I would consider TKMS are out of the picture. We would have hulls in the water faster with MHI.