Let’s be honest New Zealand will just buy straight from Japan. If we can make it work then so will New Zealand. Japan is hungry to sell these ships to overseas buyers now and will have one of there yards dedicated to supply. It’s als in japans interest to sell to NZ. Australia will just maintain and upgrade them over their life. Nothing more nothing less.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
I’d speculate the RAN may not be the only foreign customer for the Mogami.
Should an Indonesia, India , Taiwan or someone else come on board, NZ will no doubt be influenced.
Japan is now in sell mode
They will set up a thousand production lines if the orders come through.
Japanese built Mogami in a time table that suits all players I’d say is both doable and desirable.
NZ you just need to write the cheque.
That cheque is for a minimum of three vessels!!!
Cheers S
It interesting to see who they are trying to pitch to.
I think NZ is much closer to a Mogami acquisition than India, Indonesia or Taiwan. Indonesia was offered this ages ago, they had a hard look, and went elsewhere. For reasons. Indonesia just acquired a carrier for a good price. Their closer relationship with the Italians are more than just one platform acquisition. Their needs are also different.
These decisions aren't just made on platform merits too. Its also on geopolitical alignment and situation. Taiwan and Japan aren't perhaps perfectly geopolitically aligned. I think India is a long shot, but India may be interested in Japanese sub-systems, India is pretty strongly now following its own indigenous designs whenever possible. If NZ is waiting for someone else to buy then it will wait too long. Australia has committed to not just buy, but build, that should address any confidence issues any nation has in the design. Realistically, NZ isn't going to use India/Taiwan/Indonesia for a build or upgrades.
Secretly I think Australia would like to keep the Mogami acquisitions to really close allies. NZ is a perfect partner. I wouldn't be surprised if Australia (Gov, RAN, industry) is as hopeful as Japan is of NZ selection. TBH NZ is also a perfect sales partner for Japan. NZ is unlikely to cause international friction due to use of weapons, and NZ is so far away, even China isn't going to be very offended (compared to say a Taiwan sale).
Potential benefits for Australia would also be significant. Training pipelines would be common. Exchanges and mix deployments, would not just be easy, but incentivise crews, because skills are instantly transferable. More career options in that space. People join just because of those opportunities. SOP/operational efficiencies would increase because two navies benching each other with a third. A 3rd nation means another political player to add mass against political decisions to cut upgrades/support for that platform. Interoperability goes way up, munitions acquisitions and stockpiling enhancements. Money goes further. The regional cohesiveness from all three operating the same ship, particularly with other navies. The visual image of AU and NZ being closer together in times of geopolitical chaos. AU/NZ are seen as reliable allies. They are seen as influential allies.
The issues with ANZAC upgrades for NZ should be a clear reminder why something like Mogami would make a lot of sense. NZ would have a choice between two providers for upgrades/services who are operating that exact platform. Both regional players. Both with skin in the game for NZ capability. Both operating large fleets of that exact ship.
For Japan, Australia and NZ are showcase customers. If Mogami just sells to AU/NZ, I think Japan will be very, very happy. That is exactly the kind of countries/industry deals they want. Japan isn't yet going to be chasing middle east/africa sales for 6000t frigates. They want premium customers, who don't come with geopolitical baggage and huge problems. I'm not sure Japan is ready to be dragged through and Indian acquisition process, for example, it could damage them. If they were mildly annoyed and disappointed with Australia's sub selection process, then they would absolutely hate some other processes.
A Chakri Naruebet type or prior to that the Vosper Thornycroft would have been a good fit in the 80s or 90s. Something similar now to supplement the majors.
The key would be three or more, probably instead of Bill and Ben, then the LHDs.
The Chakri Naruebet is a great little ship!
A very versatile platform that can undertake a broad range of missions
Unfortunately the cash strapped Thai navy could not do justice it and too many compared it to a US large fleet carrier and dismissed its aviation compliment as being too small.
Not apples for apples
In the age of unmanned stuff there is very much a place for a small affordable basic flat top.
That said, still very content with the LHDs for the RAN.
A pity we didn’t focus on a class of three such ships in preference to the aim of two and a budget LPD ( HMAS Choules )
Cheers S
ANAO review of Collins LOTE is up.
Pretty scathing on just how badly managed, tracked, implemented this project is, especially now that it has been downgraded so significantly to something akin to refurbishment of existing capability and little else. All for a paltry $11 BILLION of course…
53 contract amendments… Cost of system design has gone from $125m to $800m +…
Capability envisaged has gone backwards despite needing to be run for another decade and previously considered upgrades including optronics masts, weapons including Tomahawk have all been ditched.
No surprise really when RAN can’t figure out a way to properly upgrade them anyway...
The big surprise is RAN’s lack of confidence that we have a workforce even capable of implementing these upgrades. But hey, building brand new nuclear submarines should be no issue….
Fundamentally, the problem is the same as it has always been. RAN is trying to squeeze too much juice out of too small a fruit. They want SSN levels of capability out of an SSK and are unwilling or incapable of accepting anything less.
Only now they are trying to do it on a platform that should be retiring.
Pretty scathing on just how badly managed, tracked, implemented this project is, especially now that it has been downgraded so significantly to something akin to refurbishment of existing capability and little else. All for a paltry $11 BILLION of course…
53 contract amendments… Cost of system design has gone from $125m to $800m +…
Capability envisaged has gone backwards despite needing to be run for another decade and previously considered upgrades including optronics masts, weapons including Tomahawk have all been ditched.
No surprise really when RAN can’t figure out a way to properly upgrade them anyway...
The big surprise is RAN’s lack of confidence that we have a workforce even capable of implementing these upgrades. But hey, building brand new nuclear submarines should be no issue….
Fundamentally, the problem is the same as it has always been. RAN is trying to squeeze too much juice out of too small a fruit. They want SSN levels of capability out of an SSK and are unwilling or incapable of accepting anything less.
Only now they are trying to do it on a platform that should be retiring.
Last edited:
| Name | Commissioned (entered service) | Originally planned withdrawal date | Amended planned withdrawal date |
| HMAS Collins | 27 July 1996 | 2028 | 2040 |
| HMAS Farncomb | 31 January 1998 | 2026 | 2038 |
| HMAS Waller | 10 July 1999 | 2030 | 2042 |
| HMAS Dechaineux | 23 February 2001 | 2032 | 2044 |
| HMAS Sheean | 23 February 2001 | 2034 | 2046 |
| HMAS Rankin | 29 March 2003 | 2036 | 2048 |
Not a chance…
I have often wondered whether drones may end up being used as sensor nodes / AEW radar pickets, if they aren't already.
If a future MFU (Hunter, Mogami or Hobart replacement) is carrying an MH-60R plus a smaller drone (S-100 or Strix or whatever it ends up being), could CEA make a podded or conformal radar that the drone could carry? Even a small radar could materially increase the radar horizon, especially if you know the threat axis and can have it at, say, 10k ft, 30kms from the ship. This could add significant extra time for ESSMs to get multiple engagement opportunities at sea skimmers, or get soft kill options ready.
In the current script three Virginia Subs by the late 30s
Potentially 9 subs in service by 2040.
Sounds impressive!
But!
Cheers S
2026 Farncomb LOTE
2028 Collins LOTE
2030 Waller LOTE
2032 Virginia block IV(Used)
2032 Dechaineux LOTE
2034 Sheean LOTE
2035 Virginia block IV(Used)
2036 Rankin LOTE
2038 Virginia block VII(New) > Guarantees a base for the U.S at Stirling until about 2070.
2038 HMAS Farncomb retires
2038-2040 Possibly an additional new or used Virginia sub
2040 HMAS Collins retires
2040-2042 Possibly an additional new or used Virginia sub
2042 HMAS Waller retires
2043 SSN AUKUS 1
2044 HMAS Dechaineux retires
2046 SSN AUKUS 2
2046 HMAS Sheean retires
2048 HMAS Rankin retires
2049 SSN AUKUS 3
2052 SSN AUKUS 4
2055 SSN AUKUS 5
> $368 billion runs out
If we get Virginias 4+5, Collins class could all be decommissioned by 2040-2042.
I'm thinking any form of drone with an optical and IR sensor and a basic EW/ELINT suit patroling out over the horizon is going to provide a substantial improvement over just the ship onboard sensors. Most of the aerial drones being talked about for embarking on a ship have this already or could have it easily fitted/upgraded.
While an S100 would be fantastic, I would be of the view that this capability really needs something like a half dozen onboard drones, allowing two/three to always be in the air forming a useful perimeter.
If you want a radar then you are really talking about something like a Triton, however this is probably a vulnerable asset in hostile areas. Offboard radars are possibly better done on a surface drone.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I suspect it will really depend on what capability outcome is actually desired and then how it is utilized. As I understand it, EO sensors are good, potentially very good, at observing specific things/designated targets of interest. However, due to limitations on how such systems work they are not really useful for volume search/observation. My take on this is that a UAV could be launched from a vessel to go, observe and take pictures/video of a suspect contact to ID said contact and possibly determine what it is as well as what it is doing. However, that same drone would not really be as useful in detecting the contact in the first place, at least when compared to other systems kitted with volume search radars.
As for offboard radars fitted to drones, TBH those would really be desirable aboard airborne units if at all possible due to how much of a difference in potential detection range an increase in radar antenna altitude makes. For instance, a radar unit mounted aboard an unmanned surface drone/vessel operating 50 km from a controlling RAN warship might extend the radar detection range vs. low flying inbounds (~13 m altitude) out to between 80 to 100 km from the RAN ship. OTOH, an aerial asset flying in the vicinity of that same RAN ship but at 3000 m altitude can have a radar horizon out to ~240 km.
Also, one of the principle technical concerns I would have regarding unmanned radar platforms is managing the datalinks, connections and contact processing and then the actual control of the radar emitter itself. Aboard something like an MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk, the APS-147 surveillance radar communicates directly with the controlling workstation, operator and mission computer all aboard the helicopter, and then track data shared via datalink with other assets. Aboard a drone, either the contact return data needs to be processed locally without the benefit of observation/interpretation by a local operator and likely more processing power required, or links between the drone and mothership need to be able to handle the transmission of potentially large volumes of contacts for return processing aboard the mothership.
Yes I agree, but to your point it depends on how offboard sensors would be used. If I take the F35, it has an array of cameras (AAQ 37)and an EW suite (ASQ39) to detect an inbound missile attack in a full 360 deg arc. It supposedly has a startlingly long range and its already in second generation.Now drones typically only have one camera, and I'm not thinking a full F35 system, but maybe something more stripped down, and perhaps to larger drones like the future P6. Perhaps.
My attention to passive sensors is aligned to the liklihood that radar utilisation will be degraded (either through interference or detection) during a conflict, and secondary systems will need to be able to fill the gap.
You point on the incredible capability of drones like Triton is well made. It's just how do you protect them.
I hadn't thought too much about data processing onboard a drone. I'm wondering how the Triton does this. Does it send back the raw data or does it semi process it beforehand. I'm assuming its the latter or that poor satellite link would almost glow.
I will note that processing power is getting more and more compact and capable. Even Aegis systems now use a fraction of their original foot print.
40 years is an old submarine, however I will note USS Ohio is about 45 years old at the moment and she has another year or so of life left in her. Not an exact comparison, but it indicates 40 years is not completely fantasy.
Those two additional Virginias in the last 30's sure fill a useful hole in the program. A fleet of five Virginias by 2040 would be an incredible outcome, with the AUKUS build thereafter. I live in hope.
If the Americans keep the Perth rotational base (which I think is of value to them), then FBW could have upwards of 10 SSNs operating out of it by 2040. That's more than Guam and almost as many as Hawaii.
I should note, on the basis that the first two Virginias at at half life when we receive them, then this schedule indicates that AUKUS hulls 2 and 3 will likely be needed to replace them rather than expand the fleet.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
My understanding is that the $368B doesn’t run out until after the eighth SSN AUKUS has been delivered,
The two Block 4 Virginia’s are planned to have 20 years service life so your timeline can be extended whereby the first Virginia is retired when the 6th SSN AUKUS is delivered and the second Virginia is retired when the 7th SSN AUKUS is delivered.
The third Virginia will still have some significant life left when the 8th SSN AUKUS is delivered so I don’t understand why they are planning to acquire a new build Virginia instead of a second hand one with the required life still available.
With the discussion on the missiles arrangement on future ships yet to be built , perhaps an eye should also look for further development as per hypersonic missiles being developed for the U.S.N
www.navalnews.com
U.S. Navy begins search for Mk 41 VLS-launched hypersonic weapons - Naval News
A new Innovative Naval Prototype (INP) program is looking to advance the service’s hypersonic portfolio by combining its past investments and prior applied research into a combined effort that will field low-cost hypersonic boost-glide missiles in Mk 41 VLS cells. The U.S. Navy unveiled its...
www.navalnews.com