Aardvark144
Active Member
I thought AAP was reporting 'more than 10'.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Actually the pricing is very rubbery. I believe the quoted $10B only covers the first three ships and perhaps the cost of setting up production in Australia. I suspect when you factor in crew sizes and if our shipbuilding industry learns how to produce vessels more efficiently the price difference will come down.
Getting a lot more bang for your dollar with the Japanese ship as well.
It willl be intersting to see how BAE take this. Everyone seems to assume they will be getting the gig for building new Air Warfare destroyers but now we are hooked in to the Japanese production line I am not sure this will still be the case.
Great to see.
There will be a whole bunch of stuff that will need to happen now. Industry engagement and partnerships.
The battle isn't between mitsubishi and BAE. It's between nation states, or greater.
There will be a whole bunch of stuff that will need to happen now. Industry engagement and partnerships.
There should be some commonality with US weapons, there may need to be some integration work, software, like actually targeting and firing tests. It would make sense for Australia to do that, since we would do it anyway. The Americans an others may want to come watch. The Japanese have ESSM, SM2, SM6, SM3, TLAM. Just not fired from these platforms. Although the 128 missiles, seems to mean that they intend to quad pack something (ESSM II) into it. That and SeaRAM. Although 07VLA is also in the mix.
It's a seperate program. I hope it lights a fire under them, and the japanese reach out to BAE and to their contractors and they cooperate at an industry level. Its in Japan's interest that Australia has the most capable ADF it can. With Japanese yard basically at max capacity, BAE may be interested in coordinating with Japan. Perhaps for AU/UK/US/NZ/CA options for japanese designs. Japan is already partnered up with UK on several programs. Their interests go beyond simple box flogging. It may make sense to partner with the Japanese on a joint Air Warfare platform across multiple countries. I don't think it has to be seen as hostile.
The battle isn't between mitsubishi and BAE. It's between nation states, or greater.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
A reporter mate at Breaking Defense says it's 11. I questioned him on the count of 10 in his article and he confirmed 11.
Wasn't expecting this today, so pleasant surprise. I noted in the media release that the Government obtained the right to purchase the entire Austral Australian busines (people, equipment and facilities) if any individual share holder exceeded 20% ownership. Kind of puts a stop to Hanwa's actions.
From the IIP, the $10B is the expenditure over the 10 year period to 2034. This program runs beyond that so the full program will be a lot more than $10b.
Its weird how they talk abou SSNs as a through life cost of $368B, but the GPFs as the 10 year expenditure
No doubt we see civmec get alot of the build and a few Japanese companies open up shop in Henderson.
Marles stated 3+8 in the presser, journos struggling with basic maths I think.
Anthony_B_78
Active Member
Looks like they've corrected their story. They're now saying: They are part of an 11-frigate fleet, with the last eight to be built in Western Australia's Henderson precinct.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
ABC can't count
And Conroy clearly says 11 in the Sky interview above. No 'up to' from either minister.
Tas
Sooner rather than later could have been 6 months after the defence review IMO.....how long did the "urgent" decision take....now it's how long before contracts are drawn up and signed, they are not ordered yet, just decided that they want the "hilux" over the "VW".
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
Conroy said on Sky that they would start building 8 Mogamis at Henderson with potentially more after that. It seems they're on the right track.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
There’s no doubt that the Mogami & Hunter hulls are great designs which allow for growth in batches over many years. It will be interesting to see the changes as subsequent batches are ordered. In conjunction with the SSN program, there is finally some structure to the RAN’s forward plans.
Sea Ram! I cannot understand why it isn’t part of the defence layer on our current ships already. I see a role for both Phalanx and Sea Ram on each and every major ship in the RAN.
It would be nice if that happened. No possible way this program will be $10 billion with operating and maintenance costs even further the first 3 vessels. I suspect political point scoring. I think it’s fair enough to ask what is the through life costs as they seem to use that to beat on the AUKUS program.
OldTex
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a stripped down domestically built Mogami might become the modern equivalent of the WW2 Bathurst class corvette for the RAN. Providing a mothership for MCM drones, hydrographic survey, training ship(s) etc
Transforming AEGIS into an open architecture system is supposed to be able to support a 'weapons library' for all operators, not just the US catalogue.
Collaboration is what the smaller nations need to do more of, we want platforms we can't afford to develop on our own (like USA/China). Merging the type 83 proposal into a future AWD joint venture with AUS/JAP has potential.
The press struggle with anything military. I am waiting for them to start referring to them as battleships with accompanying photographs of the Yamato.
iambuzzard
Well-Known Member
I remember a Harvard in the Herald Sun referred to as a Spitfire.