Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Slim chance of a continued 30FFM production run.
Marles says 1 in the 2020s, so maybe 1, 2 or 3 30FFM fitted with VLS and leased or sold between 2028-2033.
2026-Arunta to be decommissioned, the other 6 Anzacs >2029-2034 going off 28 year service life. -Could keep the surface fleet at 9-11 MFUs before entry of the first Hunter.
2029 is when Henderson is supposed to begin construction of GPFs with the first delivered post Hunter 1.
A possible timeline…
1 Mogami (2028 or 2029)
0-2 Mogami (2030-2033)
+ 3 Upgraded Mogami built overseas (2030 entry at the earliest<)
+ 5-8 Upgraded Mogami built in Henderson (2035/2036 entry<)
Marles says 1 in the 2020s, so maybe 1, 2 or 3 30FFM fitted with VLS and leased or sold between 2028-2033.
2026-Arunta to be decommissioned, the other 6 Anzacs >2029-2034 going off 28 year service life. -Could keep the surface fleet at 9-11 MFUs before entry of the first Hunter.
2029 is when Henderson is supposed to begin construction of GPFs with the first delivered post Hunter 1.
A possible timeline…
1 Mogami (2028 or 2029)
0-2 Mogami (2030-2033)
+ 3 Upgraded Mogami built overseas (2030 entry at the earliest<)
+ 5-8 Upgraded Mogami built in Henderson (2035/2036 entry<)
Last edited:
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Correct. In the words of Mr.Spock, it's only logical. Here's hoping we "Live Long And Prosper" out of this decision!
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As Sammy said, the tea leaves are pointed that way. If the government is smart (and the Coalition if they get in), we could have the fleet enlarging fairly quickly. We don't have the old White Paper 10 years warning scenario any more. The balloon could go up next year, not 2027 as some have thought. Xi Jinping has stated Taiwan will be China's in his lifetime and he ain't a young man. Yesterday would have been better for new ships.
Submarine workers get wage parity after 12 month dispute - Australian Manufacturing Forum
On a good note for all parties, I think, the Adelaide ASC wage dispute has finally ended. The workforce got an 18.5% increase plus future increases pegged to the WA workforce.
Hopefully everybody can now get back to overhauling the Collins subs and get them back in the water.
On a good note for all parties, I think, the Adelaide ASC wage dispute has finally ended. The workforce got an 18.5% increase plus future increases pegged to the WA workforce.
Hopefully everybody can now get back to overhauling the Collins subs and get them back in the water.
I must admit the whole artificial wage control and restriction of trade thing gets under my skin. ASC are government owned and their wages, while good were below, not just WA but many of the contractors they were working with.
As a country we seem perfectly happy paying people in certain, arguably non technical industries, more than doctors, but choke at the thought of engineers trades and technical being paid what admin, contracts and project managers get paid.
Ship building isn't being held up by a lack of non technical project managers, the issue is not enough people who design, build, commision and test.
Scott Elaurant
Well-Known Member
I note some talk about possible future nuclear powered warships other than submarines. I urge caution. Vested interests are always talking up such prospects. But the evidence is that nuclear powered shipping, like land based SMRs, remains hopelessly uncompetitive from a cost, construction time, and maintenance viewpoint. I recommend this source below for a compendium of open source information on past attempts at it in many countries. Note how many countries investigated or even built nuclear powered ships but abandoned the idea.
For submarines or specialist ships where nuclear power has particular benefits (icebreakers, aircraft carriers) nuclear power can make sense. But not otherwise. Also the requirements for an SSN reactor are very particular. Having an effective SSN reactor does not mean you can then efficiently build nuclear powered ships.
For submarines or specialist ships where nuclear power has particular benefits (icebreakers, aircraft carriers) nuclear power can make sense. But not otherwise. Also the requirements for an SSN reactor are very particular. Having an effective SSN reactor does not mean you can then efficiently build nuclear powered ships.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
NP, via fission reactors, for surface ships (other than big carriers) is a non starter. Fusion reactors, hell ya, accept the arrival of this technology has been promised years ago and now 10-20 years ( depending on who you want to believe). That time frame is beyond my expiry date.
d-ron84
Member
I have a different take on this, being someone who actually has to go to sea on these platforms.
"How about you do your job correctly and stop putting submariners lives at risk before asking for more money!"
The WA ASC workforce conducted PIA out the front of HMAS Stirling TWO DAYS after flooding a boat IN DOCK!
My little rant over.
(Any views, thoughts, and opinions expressed by me are solely mine and do not reflect the views, opinions, policies, or position of the Royal Australian Navy, Australian Defence Force or Australian Government)
downunderblue
Member
He's the DPM so has to talk up the MHI bid in the presence of his Japanese counterpart.
The ANOA will scrutiny the bid process to ensure it both meets PGPA accountability as well as avoid any future law suit.
Agree with above. I can read between the spin but the big reveal for me are the three designs mentioned. Again he references the established Mogami but must also be referring to the Evolved Mogami.
Looking at Mogami #13 onwards (2028?), I thought the only existing and current build will be Evolved Mogami, so it'd be odd to order the old model. That said, stranger things have happened.
One wonders why Andrew Greene or similar travelling journos didn't quiz Marles further on the 3 design approach. Again, it will leak so we will here more soon.
The ANOA will scrutiny the bid process to ensure it both meets PGPA accountability as well as avoid any future law suit.
Agree with above. I can read between the spin but the big reveal for me are the three designs mentioned. Again he references the established Mogami but must also be referring to the Evolved Mogami.
Looking at Mogami #13 onwards (2028?), I thought the only existing and current build will be Evolved Mogami, so it'd be odd to order the old model. That said, stranger things have happened.
One wonders why Andrew Greene or similar travelling journos didn't quiz Marles further on the 3 design approach. Again, it will leak so we will here more soon.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
As mentioned before with the Mogami in service the opportunity to cross train on them is a compelling argument should we choose the Evolved version. There are many positives in the Japanese offer. The systems should be the same with the same crew numbers. 32VLS is a plus.
I would view the references to the classic Mogami would relate to providing either those already built (i.e transferring in use ships, hulls 1-10) or those in build (I think hulls 11 and 12 are currently in construction), rather than extending the production line for the classics.
It's not a too different principle to the SSNs where the plan is to receive two second hand vessels before new ones come online.
If we were to receive a couple of the early hulls that have been in service for a while as platforms for crews to train on (and still do regional patrols), then that would be a great outcome. Could get these well before 2029, say 2026 or 2027, and we would be fully ready for new hulls at the turn of the decade.
They could be replaced at the end of the build program as end of life in the late 30s, early 40s, so no impact to the continuous ship building strategy.
Combining a few sources….
FFM 7 >Laid Down 2022 / Launched 2023 / Commissioned 2024 - fitted with VLS 2024/25
FFM 8 >LD 2022 / L 2023 / C 2025 - fitted with VLS 2024/25
-3 more Mogamis fitted with VLS in 2025/26, 3 more in 2027/28
FFM 9 >LD 2023 / L 2024 / C 2025 - with VLS
FFM 10 >LD 2023 / L 2026 / C 2027 - with VLS
FFM 11 >LD 2024 / L 2026 / C 2027 - with VLS
FFM 12 >LD 2024 / L 2027 / C 2028 - with VLS
Upgraded FFM 13 >LD 2025 / L 2027 / C 2029
Upgraded FFM 14 >LD 2025 / L 2027 / C 2029
Upgraded FFM 15 - request for a 3rd to be built from 2025
6 ships, FFM 7, 8, 9 and 3 of the first 6 built should have VLS by years end 2026.
FFM 7 >Laid Down 2022 / Launched 2023 / Commissioned 2024 - fitted with VLS 2024/25
FFM 8 >LD 2022 / L 2023 / C 2025 - fitted with VLS 2024/25
-3 more Mogamis fitted with VLS in 2025/26, 3 more in 2027/28
FFM 9 >LD 2023 / L 2024 / C 2025 - with VLS
FFM 10 >LD 2023 / L 2026 / C 2027 - with VLS
FFM 11 >LD 2024 / L 2026 / C 2027 - with VLS
FFM 12 >LD 2024 / L 2027 / C 2028 - with VLS
Upgraded FFM 13 >LD 2025 / L 2027 / C 2029
Upgraded FFM 14 >LD 2025 / L 2027 / C 2029
Upgraded FFM 15 - request for a 3rd to be built from 2025
6 ships, FFM 7, 8, 9 and 3 of the first 6 built should have VLS by years end 2026.
Problem might be that not a lot of RAN members read, and are fluent in, Japanese. It’s very unlikely that a ship of the JMSDF will have its systems in English, even for those which may have originated in the English speaking world.
That RAN ship system presentation is in English is not negotiable. So two main options if the Japanese ship is chosen, either translate all the system information into English or replace them with English language based equivalents. Most likely a combination.
Last edited:
I think new builds are more likely. Existing ships have existing crews. A new build means that japan can possibly just continue service of their existing ships.
Also ships are a function of their time. If we are to provide local support and future build for any of these ships its more likely to be new ships. Japan also seems to be doing a fair bit of refitting of the earlier ships. they may not be avalible.
Lower risk doesn't always mean existing ships. Acquiring a Iowa battleship, is an existing class of ships, but would be high risk. Being intergrated into the new build process would make bringing on capabilities much easier, prices would be more competitive as you can get off hot lines rather than tap into limited older stuff stashed in warehouses as support equipment.
Japan has sought export of these ships for sometime. Porting them to english is not insurmountable. But again this is not something Japan has a lot of experience with, its not in NATO, it hasn't exported equipment to the RAN or RN or RCN before. I suspect they are fairly closely aligned to US standards as that is who they operate the most with.
Japan basing a ship flight I in Australia with a Japanese crew would be very useful for say 12 months. Flight I and Flight II have very simular systems and layout. From a training point of view it would be avantagous to do that. But maybe the RAN crew would be based in Japan, we have a standing forces agreement. It would be possible to do that. But local support is also a thing.. Getting suppliers to sign up to sea3000 is going to be interesting.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Basing a Flight 1 here would be advantageous from the standby of support personnel as well. It would help them get get familiar with the type before ours enter service. Here's hoping the right decision is made.
My grandfather's oldest brother was one of the original crew of HMS Agincourt (previously Rio de Janeiro, then Sultan Osman I), being assigned to her 4th August 1914. Said she still had some of the original Portuguese labels, which was convenient, as they were much easier to translate than the Turkish ones. The more important ones had all been changed to Turkish, though.
It was a response to a question from a Japanese journalist, so no surprises to the focus.