Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[devo99]

Well the spanish operate Harriers, but their plans for F-35B haven't materialised. Turkeys plans for F-35B on its LHD haven't materialised either. Surely a sign that perhaps this concept isn't as desirable as it may first seem.

At least in the Turkish case it's because their purchase of F-35 was blocked by the US for them breaching CATSAA by buying S-400 from Russia.
Italy, Japan and the US all seem to contradict your latter assertion although the US ships have capacity for a larger F-35 compliment.

 

[Stampede]

At least in the Turkish case it's because their purchase of F-35 was blocked by the US for them breaching CATSAA by buying S-400 from Russia.
Italy, Japan and the US all seem to contradict your latter assertion although the US ships have capacity for a larger F-35 compliment.

For Türkiye its accessibility
For Spain its dollars and assessing which CTOL aircraft will replace the F18.
Again dollars not a lack of aspiration to replace the Old Harrier.
For Australia its dollars and prudence.

if their was a perfect match for for a nation wanting this capability at sea it would be a nation with a prior history of operating carriers
A national in the F35 program
A national that has a F35b compatible ship or two
A nation with a maritime tradition.
A large remote island surrounded by vast oceans and island archipelago.

if such a nation existed you would think it would be a logical candidate but choices however need to be made with the funds available.

Again focus on the unmanned stuff first for the fleet.
Every vessel from a Cape to a LHD should have UAVs in quantity appropriate for the ships size and purpose at hand.

Cheers S

ps the AEW capabilities should be explored

 

[Going Boeing]

The RN appears to be moving away from helicopter AEW and developing a UAV platform for the role. I suspect that the effort, logistics & cost of the current Merlin AEW fleet in trying to maintain a 24 hour coverage is draining on their resources.

Helicopter costs are significantly higher than an equivalent sized fixed wing aircraft so, an unmanned UAV that is capable of operating off a non catapult flight deck becomes very attractive - not only for cost, personnel etc, but also endurance. 24 hour coverage would be achievable with less platforms which is desirable due to the limited hanger space available.

Once the UAV modification design work is complete, the main issue would be securing the radar signal that is transmitted from the AEW UAV to the fleet so that it is resistant to jamming and able to operate in a hostile EM environment. I suspect that is already built into the system on the Merlin fleet.

The QE2 carriers have a large flight deck so the RN solution may not be suitable for operations off the Canberra class LHD’s whose deck is more limiting.

 

[Todjaeger]

The RN appears to be moving away from helicopter AEW and developing a UAV platform for the role. I suspect that the effort, logistics & cost of the current Merlin AEW fleet in trying to maintain a 24 hour coverage is draining on their resources.

Helicopter costs are significantly higher than an equivalent sized fixed wing aircraft so, an unmanned UAV that is capable of operating off a non catapult flight deck becomes very attractive - not only for cost, personnel etc, but also endurance. 24 hour coverage would be achievable with less platforms which is desirable due to the limited hanger space available.

Once the UAV modification design work is complete, the main issue would be securing the radar signal that is transmitted from the AEW UAV to the fleet so that it is resistant to jamming and able to operate in a hostile EM environment. I suspect that is already built into the system on the Merlin fleet.

The QE2 carriers have a large flight deck so the RN solution may not be suitable for operations off the Canberra class LHD’s whose deck is more limiting.

I think the RN is looking to see if there are other options than helicopter based AEW, me being me though I would very much want to see if a UAV-based AEW system can actually be made to work. Given some of the potential bandwidth requirements, there is a distinct possibility that unmanned AEW is not viable at the present time.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I feel some of the aviation expectations of the JC1 are more sales than reality.
Well done Spain!

It had enough aviation capacity that it allowed Spain to decommission their carrier than ran exclusively on Jp5! It wasn't designed as a carrier, it was designed enough with enough capabilities to allow Spain to unburden itself of it dedicated carrier. Spain had designs for a more dedicated carrier version, but it, suprise suprise, never happened.

How AEW helos could the Canberra class accommodate?

I don't think Helos make good AEW platforms. For many reasons. Their radars are slung under the platform usually. Helicopters aren't known for endurance, low maintenance, or high altitude, or range. They aren't also known for being fast (in climb or in straight flight) or low observable. Against any sort of peer capability a Helo AEW is a bad idea, it's a prime target for a OTH missile. It will be easy to target, as its broadcasting its location and at high altitude, moving very, very slowly, with an absolutely obvious radar signature. You are making a really clear target for your carrier, fire your smart self targeting ASM this way..

Anyone operating any sort of EW or dedicated land based AEW platform, is going to cause big problems for the weaker, less powerful, less processing, lower altitude, less endurance, less maneuverable platform. They will see you first, they will detect you and all your assets first.

Something like a MQ-9 would be a better platform for radar. Its 50% faster, has more range (by more than twice, more like 3 times), has a 500% higher service ceiling, and 10 times the endurance. Also unmanned with lower maintenance requirements, and lower operational costs. It can operate at range from the task group while offering organic capabilities. While it could operate off a carrier if it absolutely needed to, it could, most of the time, operate off land, freeing resources off the carrier.

AFAIK crowsnest is to be scrapped in 4 years.

New Govt keeps plan to scrap Crowsnest after four years

The Government have confirmed they intend to retire the the Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system in four years, despite the system set to achieve full operating capability this year.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

At this point some sort of drone AEW will take its place.

This space is still moving pretty fast.

Australia is in a bit of a different space with its needs to the UK. We don't have something like the Falkland's, a large unprotected, but inhabited island, far away from friendly or home land bases, with a contestable non peer power with an airforce nearby. Spain, UK are more in that space than we are.

Key functions would more like submarine hunting or supporting and securing airspace around key choke points like Malacca or Sunda.. Or christmas island or Manus. Which we would have to do with local/regional support. However, even with local support, they have limited airfield capability, and are likely targets, also support doesn't mean we can always turn up and base 75 F-35 A fighter jets, KC-30, E7 and P8s from their airstrips, and mostly that is what they are airstrips, not advanced western airbases..

Fielding naval aviation against China is going to be problematic. Even F-35Bs against J20's isn't a sure bet, particularly with Chinese AEW capabilities.. Aim 174b and LRASM are no go on the F-35B.

Carrier stuff for Australia would involve a lot of risk, development, money and time. Its more than just a ship and some F-35Bs.

 

[SammyC]

HMAS Arafura Commissioning Ceremony Expression of Interest

Arafura's commissioning is scheduled for 28 June.

 

[Julian 82]

It had enough aviation capacity that it allowed Spain to decommission their carrier than ran exclusively on Jp5! It wasn't designed as a carrier, it was designed enough with enough capabilities to allow Spain to unburden itself of it dedicated carrier. Spain had designs for a more dedicated carrier version, but it, suprise suprise, never happened.


I don't think Helos make good AEW platforms. For many reasons. Their radars are slung under the platform usually. Helicopters aren't known for endurance, low maintenance, or high altitude, or range. They aren't also known for being fast (in climb or in straight flight) or low observable. Against any sort of peer capability a Helo AEW is a bad idea, it's a prime target for a OTH missile. It will be easy to target, as its broadcasting its location and at high altitude, moving very, very slowly, with an absolutely obvious radar signature. You are making a really clear target for your carrier, fire your smart self targeting ASM this way..

Anyone operating any sort of EW or dedicated land based AEW platform, is going to cause big problems for the weaker, less powerful, less processing, lower altitude, less endurance, less maneuverable platform. They will see you first, they will detect you and all your assets first.

Something like a MQ-9 would be a better platform for radar. Its 50% faster, has more range (by more than twice, more like 3 times), has a 500% higher service ceiling, and 10 times the endurance. Also unmanned with lower maintenance requirements, and lower operational costs. It can operate at range from the task group while offering organic capabilities. While it could operate off a carrier if it absolutely needed to, it could, most of the time, operate off land, freeing resources off the carrier.

AFAIK crowsnest is to be scrapped in 4 years.

New Govt keeps plan to scrap Crowsnest after four years

The Government have confirmed they intend to retire the the Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system in four years, despite the system set to achieve full operating capability this year.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

At this point some sort of drone AEW will take its place.

This space is still moving pretty fast.

Australia is in a bit of a different space with its needs to the UK. We don't have something like the Falkland's, a large unprotected, but inhabited island, far away from friendly or home land bases, with a contestable non peer power with an airforce nearby. Spain, UK are more in that space than we are.

Key functions would more like submarine hunting or supporting and securing airspace around key choke points like Malacca or Sunda.. Or christmas island or Manus. Which we would have to do with local/regional support. However, even with local support, they have limited airfield capability, and are likely targets, also support doesn't mean we can always turn up and base 75 F-35 A fighter jets, KC-30, E7 and P8s from their airstrips, and mostly that is what they are airstrips, not advanced western airbases..

Fielding naval aviation against China is going to be problematic. Even F-35Bs against J20's isn't a sure bet, particularly with Chinese AEW capabilities.. Aim 174b and LRASM are no go on the F-35B.

Carrier stuff for Australia would involve a lot of risk, development, money and time. Its more than just a ship and some F-35Bs.

F-35B can carry LRASM and n

It had enough aviation capacity that it allowed Spain to decommission their carrier than ran exclusively on Jp5! It wasn't designed as a carrier, it was designed enough with enough capabilities to allow Spain to unburden itself of it dedicated carrier. Spain had designs for a more dedicated carrier version, but it, suprise suprise, never happened.


I don't think Helos make good AEW platforms. For many reasons. Their radars are slung under the platform usually. Helicopters aren't known for endurance, low maintenance, or high altitude, or range. They aren't also known for being fast (in climb or in straight flight) or low observable. Against any sort of peer capability a Helo AEW is a bad idea, it's a prime target for a OTH missile. It will be easy to target, as its broadcasting its location and at high altitude, moving very, very slowly, with an absolutely obvious radar signature. You are making a really clear target for your carrier, fire your smart self targeting ASM this way..

Anyone operating any sort of EW or dedicated land based AEW platform, is going to cause big problems for the weaker, less powerful, less processing, lower altitude, less endurance, less maneuverable platform. They will see you first, they will detect you and all your assets first.

Something like a MQ-9 would be a better platform for radar. Its 50% faster, has more range (by more than twice, more like 3 times), has a 500% higher service ceiling, and 10 times the endurance. Also unmanned with lower maintenance requirements, and lower operational costs. It can operate at range from the task group while offering organic capabilities. While it could operate off a carrier if it absolutely needed to, it could, most of the time, operate off land, freeing resources off the carrier.

AFAIK crowsnest is to be scrapped in 4 years.

New Govt keeps plan to scrap Crowsnest after four years

The Government have confirmed they intend to retire the the Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system in four years, despite the system set to achieve full operating capability this year.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

At this point some sort of drone AEW will take its place.

This space is still moving pretty fast.

Australia is in a bit of a different space with its needs to the UK. We don't have something like the Falkland's, a large unprotected, but inhabited island, far away from friendly or home land bases, with a contestable non peer power with an airforce nearby. Spain, UK are more in that space than we are.

Key functions would more like submarine hunting or supporting and securing airspace around key choke points like Malacca or Sunda.. Or christmas island or Manus. Which we would have to do with local/regional support. However, even with local support, they have limited airfield capability, and are likely targets, also support doesn't mean we can always turn up and base 75 F-35 A fighter jets, KC-30, E7 and P8s from their airstrips, and mostly that is what they are airstrips, not advanced western airbases..

Fielding naval aviation against China is going to be problematic. Even F-35Bs against J20's isn't a sure bet, particularly with Chinese AEW capabilities.. Aim 174b and LRASM are no go on the F-35B.

Carrier stuff for Australia would involve a lot of risk, development, money and time. Its more than just a ship and some F-35Bs.

The F-35B is being certified to carry the LRASM. At least according to the photo below. I can’t see any reason why it couldn’t carry the AIM174B in the future.

 

[hauritz]

HMAS Arafura Commissioning Ceremony Expression of Interest

Arafura's commissioning is scheduled for 28 June.

I notice the invitation asks you to "Please select an Expression of Interest Registration type." Pretty sure if you were interested in buying it they would give you centre, front row seats.

 

[swerve]

If you showed an interest & you were a believable as a customer . . . .

 

[swerve]

It had enough aviation capacity that it allowed Spain to decommission their carrier than ran exclusively on Jp5! It wasn't designed as a carrier, it was designed enough with enough capabilities to allow Spain to unburden itself of it dedicated carrier. Spain had designs for a more dedicated carrier version, but it, suprise suprise, never happened.

It was designed to fill in for the dedicated carrier when the dedicated carrier was in repair or refit, to enable the STOVL fleet to maintain currency. AFAIK combat use was for emergencies only, but it could be fitted out for STOVL ops very quickly indeed. Supposedly, the necessary fittings could be wheeled aboard, locked down, & plugged in.

Plans to keep Principe de Asturias in service until a new (& bigger) F-35 carrier was ready were abandoned for financial reasons after the 2008 economic crisis. Given the changed circumstances, maybe a new carrier could be back on the agenda.

 

[Reptilia]

HMAS Arafura Commissioning Ceremony Expression of Interest

Arafura's commissioning is scheduled for 28 June.

surely we see HMAS Eyre commissioned this year also and Pilbara launched.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It was designed to fill in for the dedicated carrier when the dedicated carrier was in repair or refit, to enable the STOVL fleet to maintain currency. AFAIK combat use was for emergencies only, but it could be fitted out for STOVL ops very quickly indeed. Supposedly, the necessary fittings could be wheeled aboard, locked down, & plugged in.

Well this is the thing. What does Spain need a carrier for?
Canary Islands, Ceuta Melilla, Balearic Islands. It needs to be able to secure these island possessions that are immediate off or even apart of another nation's coast, mostly Morocco.

Take for example the Canary islands. in which 2m people live just off the coast of Morocco/North Africa, and out of conventional fighter jet aircover. Given that Morocco has tried to take islands off spain, as recently as 2018, but more drastically invaded Spanish Sahara in 1975. These are definitely conflicts that other powers don't want to get involved in. These are leftover stuff from colonial days that Spain needs to resolve themselves and their relationship with their nearby neighbor.

This would be much more akin to Australia perhaps having Singapore or if Tasmania was directly off the coast of Indonesia. Yeh, in that kind of situation, we should probably have carriers, particularly if that territory was being contested or threatened by other nation states.

Does Australia foresee such issues with itself? With with nations? Where specifically? And does carrier power change that equation.

I would argue, any carrier power Australia acquires is not relevant in a China Conflict. Unless we are acquiring a million tonnes of carrier power it would not shift the dial, and in simulations, the US loses half of its carrier fleet. In a more unstable world? Maybe, but unlikely by ourselves. For our own territories probably not. If Singapore/PNG/Fiji said, they needed help, they co-founded the cost of the capability, we may look at something like that. Perhaps in conjunction with our bigger partners like the UK or the US. If Malaysia fell out of the 5 powers, maybe..

Spain, Turkey, Korea, are 3 middle powers like ourselves, that looked, long and hard at carrier power. Spain doesn't want to spend the money, and has some symbolic capability with harriers. Turkey, weighed its options, and decided, it probably wasn't worth it. Yes, it was kicked out of F-35 program and acquisition, but that was its own choice. It could have prioritised that if it deemed its capability more important. Korea, can't see the sense in it. Koreas threat is right on its doorstep. It has contested islands, but they are generally uninhabited. Carriers doesn't make any difference there. It was probably more about Japan, getting some sort of carrier capability.

But even then, Japan doesn't have conventional carriers. It has ships that they hope intend to support fixed wing ops, but fixed wing will mostly operate from islands. The ships themselves are still ASW focused. I would imagine they are concerned about them being easy targets for repeated Chinese attacks from aircraft, interrupting their ASW mission. Im not sure we are in the same position.

 

[BSKS]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice? The problem with that, though, is Upgraded Mogami is a very compelling platform and selecting it would greatly enhance our political and military industrial relationship with Japan, which would have benefits beyond shipbuilding alone.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

What if...

We obtain MEKO A200 as the tier 2 frigate (all 11), but also obtain six Upgraded Mogami to replace Hunter as the RAN's primary ASW platform. This would allow the Hunter build to pivot to the AWD role (ie add 96VLS, subtract the specialist ASW equipment) which have the added benefit of supplementing our under strength Hobart force much sooner.

If the initial three Upgraded Mogami and MEKO vessels were still built in Japan and Germany respectively before on-shore builds took over, the delivery schedule could look like this:

Year	Current Plan	Total New Vessels	New Plan	Total New Vessels
2029	3 x Mogami/MEKO	3	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO	6
2032	3 x Mogami/MEKO + 1 x Hunter	4	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO + 1 x Hunter	7
2035	6 x Mogami/MEKO + 2 x Hunter	8	6 x Mogami + 6 MEKO + 2 Hunter	14
2038	9 x Mogami/MEKO + 3 x Hunter	12	6 x Mogami + 9 MEKO + 3 Hunter	18

What about costs?
Given each Hunter costs $9B, swapping them for Upgraded Mogami's at <$2B could conservatively save $30B!, easily covering the additional costs to pivot Hunter class to the AWD role and leaving some left over!

If Osborne was not able to build Upgraded Mogami at the same time as Hunter (and potentially also SSN AUKUS), all six upgraded Mogami's could be built in Japan. ( Similarly all eleven MEKO A200's could be built in Germany if there are problems at Henderson).

Of course faster delivery would challenge the RAN in many ways, and although overall costs would likely be lower, more money would probably be required sooner.

On the surface, seems like everyone's a winner here MHI, TKMS, RAN, taxpayers, Governments (all involved), even BAESMA is not left empty handed. Of course if Upgraded Mogami is not considered a suitable replacement for the current ASW focussed Hunter, that might be a barrier.

 

[Reptilia]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice? The problem with that, though, is Upgraded Mogami is a very compelling platform and selecting it would greatly enhance our political and military industrial relationship with Japan, which would have benefits beyond shipbuilding alone.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

What if...

We obtain MEKO A200 as the tier 2 frigate (all 11), but also obtain six Upgraded Mogami to replace Hunter as the RAN's primary ASW platform. This would allow the Hunter build to pivot to the AWD role (ie add 96VLS, subtract the specialist ASW equipment) which have the added benefit of supplementing our under strength Hobart force much sooner.

If the initial three Upgraded Mogami and MEKO vessels were still built in Japan and Germany respectively before on-shore builds took over, the delivery schedule could look like this:

Year	Current Plan	Total New Vessels	New Plan	Total New Vessels
2029	3 x Mogami/MEKO	3	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO	6
2032	3 x Mogami/MEKO + 1 x Hunter	4	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO + 1 x Hunter	7
2035	6 x Mogami/MEKO + 2 x Hunter	8	6 x Mogami + 6 MEKO + 2 Hunter	14
2038	9 x Mogami/MEKO + 3 x Hunter	12	6 x Mogami + 9 MEKO + 3 Hunter	18

What about costs?
Given each Hunter costs $9B, swapping them for Upgraded Mogami's at <$2B could conservatively save $30B!, easily covering the additional costs to pivot Hunter class to the AWD role and leaving some left over!

If Osborne was not able to build Upgraded Mogami at the same time as Hunter (and potentially also SSN AUKUS), all six upgraded Mogami's could be built in Japan. ( Similarly all eleven MEKO A200's could be built in Germany if there are problems at Henderson).

Of course faster delivery would challenge the RAN in many ways, and although overall costs would likely be lower, more money would probably be required sooner.

On the surface, seems like everyone's a winner here MHI, TKMS, RAN, taxpayers, Governments (all involved), even BAESMA is not left empty handed. Of course if Upgraded Mogami is not considered a suitable replacement for the current ASW focussed Hunter, that might be a barrier.

A premier ASW Hunter.frigate converted to a destroyer and a premier ASW Hunter swapped out for ASW frigate that is significantly less capable. Not gonna happen…
If more ships in the water quicker is the aim and at a reduced cost, more ships should be built overseas and less built here.

 

[Morgo]

A premier ASW Hunter.frigate converted to a destroyer and a premier ASW Hunter swapped out for ASW frigate that is significantly less capable. Not gonna happen…
If more ships in the water quicker is the aim and at a reduced cost, more ships should be built overseas and less built here.

If we build Hunters and derivatives in serious numbers we’ll also materially reduce the UN it cost.

Does anyone know how much of the Hunter unit cost is truly variable and how much is R&D / Osborne setup costs?

 

[Going Boeing]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice? The problem with that, though, is Upgraded Mogami is a very compelling platform and selecting it would greatly enhance our political and military industrial relationship with Japan, which would have benefits beyond shipbuilding alone.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

Part of the high price for the Hunter class is its advanced and very quiet propulsion which was specifically designed for ASW. Your proposal would transfer this capability to an AAW role and replace it in the ASW role with a vessel whose drivetrain is reported to be not as specialised.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice?

The MEKO variant being marketed isn't even in service, whereas Mogami is. New-FFM is a modified version of the existing class but mostly just by stretching the hull. That means due to the large numbers of ships already purchased Australia would benefit from lower unit prices. Whereas Australia would probably have to pay for the development costs of the new A200 design, as well as resolving first-of-class problems. Realistically there's no money to be saved by going with MEKO.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

I don't see what the point is. Just buy the more capable ship, especially as it will enter service in 2028 giving Australia the opportunity to get it quickly.

replace Hunter as the RAN's primary ASW platform

Hunter is a more capable ship than either variant of the Mogami frigate. More importantly work has already started, and trying to change the design specifications could easily lead to a Constellation-class scenario where work slows to a crawl.

 

[SammyC]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice? The problem with that, though, is Upgraded Mogami is a very compelling platform and selecting it would greatly enhance our political and military industrial relationship with Japan, which would have benefits beyond shipbuilding alone.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

What if...

We obtain MEKO A200 as the tier 2 frigate (all 11), but also obtain six Upgraded Mogami to replace Hunter as the RAN's primary ASW platform. This would allow the Hunter build to pivot to the AWD role (ie add 96VLS, subtract the specialist ASW equipment) which have the added benefit of supplementing our under strength Hobart force much sooner.

If the initial three Upgraded Mogami and MEKO vessels were still built in Japan and Germany respectively before on-shore builds took over, the delivery schedule could look like this:

Year	Current Plan	Total New Vessels	New Plan	Total New Vessels
2029	3 x Mogami/MEKO	3	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO	6
2032	3 x Mogami/MEKO + 1 x Hunter	4	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO + 1 x Hunter	7
2035	6 x Mogami/MEKO + 2 x Hunter	8	6 x Mogami + 6 MEKO + 2 Hunter	14
2038	9 x Mogami/MEKO + 3 x Hunter	12	6 x Mogami + 9 MEKO + 3 Hunter	18

What about costs?
Given each Hunter costs $9B, swapping them for Upgraded Mogami's at <$2B could conservatively save $30B!, easily covering the additional costs to pivot Hunter class to the AWD role and leaving some left over!

If Osborne was not able to build Upgraded Mogami at the same time as Hunter (and potentially also SSN AUKUS), all six upgraded Mogami's could be built in Japan. ( Similarly all eleven MEKO A200's could be built in Germany if there are problems at Henderson).

Of course faster delivery would challenge the RAN in many ways, and although overall costs would likely be lower, more money would probably be required sooner.

On the surface, seems like everyone's a winner here MHI, TKMS, RAN, taxpayers, Governments (all involved), even BAESMA is not left empty handed. Of course if Upgraded Mogami is not considered a suitable replacement for the current ASW focussed Hunter, that might be a barrier.

The Japanese treat the Mogami (classic and upgraded) like a tier 2. While it has good ASW capabilities, I would not consider it a near peer for the Hunter in this function.

$9B is a bit high for the Hunter, I think its build cost (excluding, design, through life and shipyard development costs) is somewhere between $3-4B. The Mogami on the converted cost to the Japanese will likely be in the order of $1-1.5B, probably in the $1.5-2B range for us. I suspect there will not be a lot of difference in the all in pricing between the Mogami and the Meko, and if that is the case then the Mogami is the clear winner.

The difference in price between the Mogami and the Hunter gives you a significant step up in sub hunting capability, plus a tier 1 capability in air defence.

I would suggest too much time and money has been sunk on the Hunter to walk away from it now, and while it went through some difficult design times, I think we have a very good platform at the end. Osborne is better kept building Hunter hulls, perhaps at a faster tempo, and then using the base hull for an AWD variant.

If we want more tier 2 platforms (which I think we will), then it would be better to consolidate on the one design, in my view the Mogami.

I would caution about believing that overseas yards will be able to build lots of ships ships for us. The European ones will very soon be pumping out ships for themselves and I doubt they will have spare capacity.

A very important part of the ship building program is developing the ability to construct locally. I would suggest once we hit the 2030's we will be on our own.

 

[iambuzzard]

On the SEA3000 contest, I have always thought Upgraded Mogami at >6000t FL, 142m LOA and 32 VLS is not really a Tier 2 GPF. It appears the JMSDF also do not consider it that way and treat it as their premier ASW platform. If that is the case, maybe Upgraded Mogami is "overkill" for SEA3000 and the much smaller, cheaper and familiar MEKO a more logical choice? The problem with that, though, is Upgraded Mogami is a very compelling platform and selecting it would greatly enhance our political and military industrial relationship with Japan, which would have benefits beyond shipbuilding alone.

So could the solution be to obtain both?

What if...

We obtain MEKO A200 as the tier 2 frigate (all 11), but also obtain six Upgraded Mogami to replace Hunter as the RAN's primary ASW platform. This would allow the Hunter build to pivot to the AWD role (ie add 96VLS, subtract the specialist ASW equipment) which have the added benefit of supplementing our under strength Hobart force much sooner.

If the initial three Upgraded Mogami and MEKO vessels were still built in Japan and Germany respectively before on-shore builds took over, the delivery schedule could look like this:

Year	Current Plan	Total New Vessels	New Plan	Total New Vessels
2029	3 x Mogami/MEKO	3	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO	6
2032	3 x Mogami/MEKO + 1 x Hunter	4	3 x Mogami + 3 MEKO + 1 x Hunter	7
2035	6 x Mogami/MEKO + 2 x Hunter	8	6 x Mogami + 6 MEKO + 2 Hunter	14
2038	9 x Mogami/MEKO + 3 x Hunter	12	6 x Mogami + 9 MEKO + 3 Hunter	18

What about costs?
Given each Hunter costs $9B, swapping them for Upgraded Mogami's at <$2B could conservatively save $30B!, easily covering the additional costs to pivot Hunter class to the AWD role and leaving some left over!

If Osborne was not able to build Upgraded Mogami at the same time as Hunter (and potentially also SSN AUKUS), all six upgraded Mogami's could be built in Japan. ( Similarly all eleven MEKO A200's could be built in Germany if there are problems at Henderson).

Of course faster delivery would challenge the RAN in many ways, and although overall costs would likely be lower, more money would probably be required sooner.

On the surface, seems like everyone's a winner here MHI, TKMS, RAN, taxpayers, Governments (all involved), even BAESMA is not left empty handed. Of course if Upgraded Mogami is not considered a suitable replacement for the current ASW focussed Hunter, that might be a barrier.

Interesting idea. I'm looking forward to the comments in reply.

 

[BSKS]

Thanks for the responses on this. Here are some additional comments:

The contracted cost for the first 3 Hunters is $27B, so $9B each is the cost of the three we are currently building.

MEKO A200 is in service with the Egyptian and Algerian Navy's. Are you thinking of MEKO A210? If you are I agree this is only a paper design but bottom line is its not proposed here by TKMS for SEA3000.

Key for the proposal is that it leads to more ships delivered sooner for lower cost. So this should that be weighed against perceived capability differences between Upgraded Mogami and Hunter. For example, are we better off in 2032 having 7 new vessels rather than 4? In 2038, 18 new vessels rather than 12?

I agree I am skipping over changes to Hunter to transform it from ASW to AWD and this could indeed be problematic. If that option carried too much risk perhaps it is better to cancel Hunter and just pivot Osborne over to Upgraded Mogami or even to help build MEKO's.

Our problem with Hunter in my view is the opportunity cost of $9B per ship and the slow delivery. This makes it a bad choice in the current climate. Upgraded Mogami may not be as good as Hunter (do we really even know that?), but it has many advantages nonetheless such as in crew size, overall cost and delivery schedule. The Japanese seem to think it is adequate for the ASW role.

Although Upgraded Mogami has many good points as as ASW platform, I think MEKO A200 is the better tier 2 vessel for the RAN because it will be much easier to introduce into service and operate because it will carry common AusCMS and similarities with the ANZAC's. TKMS is also a lower risk option to establish the local build if that proceeds. They have done that with MEKO many times before all around the world whereas MHI have never setup an offshore build. This is why I suggested the option of building all Upgraded Mogami's in Japan and leaving BAESMA to continue with a re-role'd AWD Hunter in Osborne.