Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
JS Noshiro(FFM3-Mogami) now at Stirling.

www.nippon.com

Japan MSDF Frigate Noshiro Makes Port Call in Australia

Sydney, March 12 (Jiji Press)--The Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force's state-of-the-art Mogami-class frigat…
www.nippon.com www.nippon.com

www3.nhk.or.jp

海自の最新鋭護衛艦がオーストラリアに そのねらいは？ | NHK

【NHK】海上自衛隊の最新鋭の護衛艦がオーストラリア海軍との共同訓練を行うため、現地に到着しました。オーストラリアは、多数のフリゲ…
www3.nhk.or.jp www3.nhk.or.jp

Arafura apparently also on its way to Stirling.
 
Going Boeing

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Earlier in this thread, the height difference of the bridge between the Mogami and the Improved Mogami was discussed with the height on the original design being considered too low with forward vision being inadequate & being partially obscured by the gun.

The pic shown in the article link provided by Reptilia is taken from an angle which highlights how low the bridge is. The Improved Mogami design appears to have corrected that.

IMG_7339.jpeg
 
S

SammyC

Well-Known Member
hauritz said:
Simulation of an ANZAC frigate vs a Chinese Type 054A. Won't spoil it.
Click to expand...
Entertaining, and nice to see an ANZAC modelled with NSM. I've watched several of the grim reapers videos.

I did enjoy the 1 mile engagement, a bit unfair to ANZAC I think.

It modelled some EW capability in the later fight, however the ANZACs have a lot more than was shown. It provides an inkling of the effectiveness of EW in defence. It's just as important as the ESSM and other anti missile systems.

Not all the NSM features were on full display either, such as terminal stage maneuvering.

It does however demonstrate the difficulty of even the most modern missiles have to penetrate defences. Both ships fired off their full anti ship missile magazine (8 missiles each), with most being defeated before reaching their target.

I like to think that old ANZAC, with an 8 cell VLS still remains very competitive with modern larger frigates. I have always held the view they remain very capable combat ships that punch well above their weight grade. Might have limited strike options, but they are nasty porcupines.

To use a cliche, it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts.
 
I

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
SammyC said:
Entertaining, and nice to see an ANZAC modelled with NSM. I've watched several of the grim reapers videos.

I did enjoy the 1 mile engagement, a bit unfair to ANZAC I think.

It modelled some EW capability in the later fight, however the ANZACs have a lot more than was shown. It provides an inkling of the effectiveness of EW in defence. It's just as important as the ESSM and other anti missile systems.

Not all the NSM features were on full display either, such as terminal stage maneuvering.

It does however demonstrate the difficulty of even the most modern missiles have to penetrate defences. Both ships fired off their full anti ship missile magazine (8 missiles each), with most being defeated before reaching their target.

I like to think that old ANZAC, with an 8 cell VLS still remains very competitive with modern larger frigates. I have always held the view they remain very capable combat ships that punch well above their weight grade. Might have limited strike options, but they are nasty porcupines.

To use a cliche, it's the size of the fight in the dog that counts.
Click to expand...
Poor old Hobart
 
S

Sender

Active Member
Sender said:
He's talking about cutting the budget in half. I don't see how AUKUS funding would not be affected if that comes to pass. It's not necessarily the end of the world for this program, but it will add to the challenges for certain.

Click to expand...
More cracks are appearing in the US portion of AUKUS:


Especially concerning are the comments form the Under Secretary of Defense questioning this importance of this program to the US.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Sender said:
More cracks are appearing in the US portion of AUKUS:


Especially concerning are the comments form the Under Secretary of Defense questioning this importance of this program to the US.
Click to expand...
What this demonstrates (besides the POTUS issues) is the US inability to increase naval ship production, especially SSNs. It is understandable that because of this the US wants all SSNs for the USN. The only likely solution for AUKUS designed submarines is construction by Australia and the UK but better delivery will require additional partners and maybe eventually other customers. Not sure how the US would feel about PR3 reactors being made available outside of AUKUS or even having parts of a SSN being produced outside.
 
Musashi_kenshin

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
Sender said:
Especially concerning are the comments form the Under Secretary of Defense questioning this importance of this program to the US.
Click to expand...
Not that I want to question the integrity of the Turkish media, but do they have any new hard information, or do they just regurgitate the usual talking points with already known information regarding the US' shipbuilding capacity? Because the money Australia has given to invest in shipbuilding has not had any chance to kick in yet.

Note that the US under secretary is subordinate to the Secretary of Defense, who previously has said that the US administration supports AUKUS.

Personally, I think it would be very healthy for the forum to stop with the constant AUKUS dooming. It's based on speculation. Official announcements are fine, but at this stage the global media are just feeding off each other's negativity for clicks and not actually saying anything new.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Musashi_kenshin said:
Not that I want to question the integrity of the Turkish media, but do they have any new hard information, or do they just regurgitate the usual talking points with already known information regarding the US' shipbuilding capacity? Because the money Australia has given to invest in shipbuilding has not had any chance to kick in yet.

Note that the US under secretary is subordinate to the Secretary of Defense, who previously has said that the US administration supports AUKUS.

Personally, I think it would be very healthy for the forum to stop with the constant AUKUS dooming. It's based on speculation. Official announcements are fine, but at this stage the global media are just feeding off each other's negativity for clicks and not actually saying anything new.
Click to expand...
You can't deny US SSN production barely, if at all, meets USN needs and as the situation with China gets worse, the need will increase. For sure Australian investments will help but skilled tradespeople don't just happen with a pile of cash. Training takes time. Skilled labour in Japan and SKorea could speed things up....if allowed.
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
Are the U.S planning to build another submarine yard at Austal USA-Mobile, Alabama?

They are building a new submarine module manufacture shed and a multi ship assembly hall + shiplift.
Looks like they have plenty of space to expand, (FA2) in the pic below is going to be partly funded by the Aus government.

Austal Investor Report 2025
 

Attachments

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top