Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[iambuzzard]

....and the days before and those to come.

Too true, John.

 

[Bob53]

I would suggest there is equal chance of the class being more than 11. The late run hulls are always the cheapest, and at a crew of 90 they are akin to two Arafuras.

For instance:

• The world situation deteriorates. Build more tier 2 ships.
• If the LOCSV proves to be problematic. Build more tier 2 ships.
• If the Hunter is delayed. Build more tier 2 ships.
• Want to increase defence expenditure towards 3%. Build more tier 2 ships.
• Need to prop up the WA economy after the iron ore industry tanks. Build more tier 2 ships.
• Need to replace the first hulls early because they have faults or are obsolete. Build more tier 2 ships.

It could end up a class of 15 or 18.

Replace the first 3 ships that might not be exactly as Australia wants after the first 8 AU builds are completed So we have a fleet with commonality. If there is then a surplus of tier 2 and the climate is right Sell or gift the first 3 to NZ.

 

[Bob53]

Currently the west has a complete shortage of AEW/AWACS capability that is suitable for peer conflicts. Australia is deploying E7 capability to Poland (not germany, not at a US base as before). Australia has 6 aircraft, so we are the largest operator outside of the US of a modern powerful AEW platform in the western world.
Australia did a billion dollar deal with Germany on land vehicles.
Australia has provided more tanks to Ukraine than the US.
There is plenty more munitions and vehicles, ships, etc in play. Many tens of billions.
The trade deal is possibly even more important than the ships. Again, potentially quite significant for Australia.

I am not saying that Japan doesn't have anything to offer, but Europe is also, now, offering more than just ships. However, the ships and wider defence deal are more separate than with the Japanese. Europe is now, in a similar situation as Japan is. In that they too feel very exposed, and now, very motivated. Australia has a lot to offer to Europe today, and in the future.

Ultimately Australia will likely strike deals with both, but where on the spectrum of the relationship will depend on things like the frigate deal.

Why not just get the frigate that suits us best …please?

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Why not just get the frigate that suits us best …please?

Bob, I quite agree. I think that the New-FFM (Mogami) is the best choice. It's a modern design from the ground up, has a lower crew requirement, is well armed and is being built right now.

The objections to it either no longer hold water (Germany is now proposing a theoretical design, so it isn't proven or low-risk), or are nonsensical (they've never exported so can't do it - which means that no one else can ever enter the export market).

On the last point, I didn't see anyone suggest it was risky for countries to order the Type 26 or Type 31 frigates. The fact the UK used to be a huge exporter of naval shipping was completely irrelevant because in the 20 years prior to that all we'd exported were some corvettes, and we certainly hadn't helped set up foreign construction lines for anything as big as what's happening now. If we can make it work, I'm sure the Japanese can.

 

[Todjaeger]

Why not just get the frigate that suits us best …please?

Part of the issue is what are the benchmarks to determine which frigate would suite the RAN "best".

I tend to think one of the primary factors determining the eventual selection will be based upon will be who can deliver complete, fitted out warships to the RAN first. An all-around more capable warship is likely going to be worth SFA if the first delivery from an overseas build is not until after the Hunter-class frigates start getting delivered. Even more so if the lead SEA 3000 frigate built overseas might not get delivered until after the 2nd Hunter-class frigate delivery.

The powers that be have apparently determined that RAN fleet numbers are too low (duh!) and the fleet needs to be expanded and at the same time the Australian industrial capacity for naval shipbuilding is insufficient to meet the desired numbers and timeframe.

I personally remain highly skeptical of what appears to be the plans behind SEA 3000, as there are so many opportunities for things to get delayed, with each delay pushing back when SEA 3000 frigates would get delivered to the RAN, either from an overseas yard of a new domestic one. I also think it would be more viable if Australian approached this via a different route. Instead of ordering three frigates to be built in an overseas yard, Australia would likely be better off placing a larger overseas order for perhaps five or six frigates, all built to print for whatever design gets selected. Then for the frigates to be built in an Australian yard, have them be built to an Australianized version of whatever design Australia had built overseas.

The Australian yard is unlikely to be ready to start cutting steel for the first domestically built SEA 3000 frigate until some time after the first overseas build has been completed and turned over to Australia, at least if things progress according to the timeline. Since it will still be several years before first steel is cut for that vessel, why not take a little time and fine-tune the design to Australian needs since it would likely be some time still before a new yard could cut first steel.

 

[Stampede]

Part of the issue is what are the benchmarks to determine which frigate would suite the RAN "best".

I tend to think one of the primary factors determining the eventual selection will be based upon will be who can deliver complete, fitted out warships to the RAN first. An all-around more capable warship is likely going to be worth SFA if the first delivery from an overseas build is not until after the Hunter-class frigates start getting delivered. Even more so if the lead SEA 3000 frigate built overseas might not get delivered until after the 2nd Hunter-class frigate delivery.

The powers that be have apparently determined that RAN fleet numbers are too low (duh!) and the fleet needs to be expanded and at the same time the Australian industrial capacity for naval shipbuilding is insufficient to meet the desired numbers and timeframe.

I personally remain highly skeptical of what appears to be the plans behind SEA 3000, as there are so many opportunities for things to get delayed, with each delay pushing back when SEA 3000 frigates would get delivered to the RAN, either from an overseas yard of a new domestic one. I also think it would be more viable if Australian approached this via a different route. Instead of ordering three frigates to be built in an overseas yard, Australia would likely be better off placing a larger overseas order for perhaps five or six frigates, all built to print for whatever design gets selected. Then for the frigates to be built in an Australian yard, have them be built to an Australianized version of whatever design Australia had built overseas.

The Australian yard is unlikely to be ready to start cutting steel for the first domestically built SEA 3000 frigate until some time after the first overseas build has been completed and turned over to Australia, at least if things progress according to the timeline. Since it will still be several years before first steel is cut for that vessel, why not take a little time and fine-tune the design to Australian needs since it would likely be some time still before a new yard could cut first steel.

Time to active service must be a big part of the equation.
What compromises are accepted to achieve that end will be interesting.

Cheers S