Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Redlands18 said:

There is a reason why the Americans stopped building CGNs after building just 9 and went conventional only with the Ticos. In the 1960s they built 9 Leahy Conventional CG, and 1 Bainbridge CGN based on the same design and then repeated with the 9 Belknap CG conventional and 1 Truxton CGN, I suspect that would be closer to the cost difference than a 6-5 ratio.

Click to expand...

Besides cost, a missile or torpedo strike on smaller surface combatant makes damage control next to impossible if the reactor area is hit, assuming it survives. Even a hit on a CVN may present damage control challenges but NP is an overall positive for a carrier due to its size and extra complexity …especially if the financial resources are available.

Decommissioning these ships can be long and complicated as per the U.S.N experience

SammyC said:

I would also view the Brits would likely extend the existing T45s for another 10 years, as they are getting some expensive upgrades through to about 2032. This means they would also delay any design work on a replacement and it would unlikely align with when we need to commence work.

So we would pick a Japanese design, perhaps the American DDX, or stick with our own platforms and evolve them for our Hobarts. Maybe they might get extended into the 2040s as well.

Click to expand...

Help me with the math here, please?

If we assume thirty years for Hobart from commissioning, that's 2047. The Darings are ten years older and are reportedly due for replacement around 2038 (When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service? | Navy Lookout), but are having a couple of major refits.

I would think that means we're due to replace around the same time, maybe plus another five years for us because of our own refit program.

The Type 26 (build) programs are much the same, and should be wrapping up around 2035 in the UK and 2040-ish here. It all seems to align almost perfectly. Am I missing something?

It feels like a missed opportunity if we don't work with the UK. Doesn't mean we might not need to go our own way, but what a waste if we do!

Bevan said:

If you scroll a little further down your Wikipedia link you posted, you will see under Ships in Class that JS Mogami has hull number FFM-1. Everything Ive read suggests FFM is the designation for the original Mogami, whereas New FFM refers to the upgraded Mogami.

Click to expand...

Hopefully it will be clarified soon (the ABC article mentioned as such), but logic says (for the first 3 ships at least) that the RAN will get the same design being built for the JMSDF.

That being said I can't find a lot of info as to what configuration MHI is building for FFM 10-12, moreover if the JMSDF will be ordering any more ships from 13+. It was originally meant to be a 24 hull buy, then cut to 12 so it seems a little opaque. Any 13+ hulls will come into the desired RAN construction timeframes so we'll likely get whatever's being offered at that point in time.

I heard (trying to source where atm but can't ) that the JMSDF is seeking an upgraded design to add more AAW capability, by upgrading MHI's OPY-2 AESA radar to add another band (S/L?) on-top of the short range X band. This was pictured in the "Upgraded Mogami" model displayed @ IODS24 and makes sense when coupled with the increased 32 cell Mk41.magazine. Can we assume that this is what the RAN will receive?

It seems all up in the air ATM but I we should all know more soon.

Please try e

Sandson41 said:

Help me with the math here, please?

If we assume thirty years for Hobart from commissioning, that's 2047. The Darings are ten years older and are reportedly due for replacement around 2038 (When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service? | Navy Lookout), but are having a couple of major refits.

I would think that means we're due to replace around the same time, maybe plus another five years for us because of our own refit program.

The Type 26 programs are much the same, and should be wrapping up around 2035 in the UK and 2040-ish here. It all seems to align almost perfectly. Am I missing something?

It feels like a missed opportunity if we don't work with the UK. Doesn't mean we might not need to go our own way, but what a waste if we do!

Click to expand...

Please excuse my ignorance if not already referred to, but why would the RAN embark on another design when an evolved AAW Hunter with 96 cells and one very impressive radar could be utilised as the Hobart replacement? BAe have already displayed this as a concept.

I again have to check the timeframes but wouldn't this come immediately after the Hunter build and be allow for a low(er) risk semi continuous build solution?

From the cheap seats alone, this seem to make a lot of sense.

downunderblue said:

Please try e

Please excuse my ignorance if not already referred to, but why would the RAN embark on another design when an evolved AAW Hunter with 96 cells and one very impressive radar could be utilised as the Hobart replacement? BAe have already displayed this as a concept.

I again have to check the timeframes but wouldn't this come immediately after the Hunter build and be allow for a low(er) risk semi continuous build solution?

From the cheap seats alone, this seem to make a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Unless the design is outdated it makes a fair amount of sense.
For the record, I was talking about the timing and joint design with the UK - not the design itself.

Sandson41 said:

Help me with the math here, please?

If we assume thirty years for Hobart from commissioning, that's 2047. The Darings are ten years older and are reportedly due for replacement around 2038 (When will the Type 45 destroyers leave Royal Navy service? | Navy Lookout), but are having a couple of major refits.

I would think that means we're due to replace around the same time, maybe plus another five years for us because of our own refit program.

The Type 26 (build) programs are much the same, and should be wrapping up around 2035 in the UK and 2040-ish here. It all seems to align almost perfectly. Am I missing something?

It feels like a missed opportunity if we don't work with the UK. Doesn't mean we might not need to go our own way, but what a waste if we do!

Click to expand...

I was basing this view less on maths, and more on economics.

Most financial long term forecasts indicate the UK is in for a bumpy decade. Their economy will shrink below inflation. There is considerable conjecture that they will be able to afford their proposed 10 year defence budget, which is already insufficient to restore recently lost capabilities.

Cash strapped nations always look to wring more out of their military kit. The UK has a history of this during good times. The T23s for instance are well beyond their expiry date. This means they will logically try and extend the T45s for as long as practically possible. I'll eat my hat if they have something ready by 2038.

I should note for fairness here, the UK is not alone in flogging naval vessels well beyond their reasonable life. Look at us, and even the US where they just extended several very aged Ticonderogas and flight 1 Burkes. Everybody does it.

I also cannot see them having the money to take on a new unique AAW platform, let alone a nuclear one. They barely afforded the T26 program and needed us to support them with their SSN/SSBN replacement.

All the above indicates to me that the Brits will delay their T45 replacement for as long as possible, and when they do start, it will be to evolve an existing hull.

Bringing this back to an RAN theme (before I get in trouble with the moderators), I can't see them being a ready or reliable partner for the Hobart replacement on anything other than updated T26/Hunter designs.

In my view we either follow that path, or we switch horses and join someone like Japan on their next AAW destroyer build.

How do you propose that the RAN crew a ship based on the next Japanese Aegis destroyer?

They require a lot of crew unless their next generation ships add a lot more automation.

The ‘easy’ option would have to be an evolved Hunter class platform.

In regards to Japanese options, I was thinking more along the lines of the 13DDX program. Its not intended to be a missile bristling beast like the Kongo series, but still capable AAW and balistic defence, with a focus on next generation of weapons. It may not necessarily be Aegis. It is supposed to draw on the Mogami automation for reduced crew size. Its likely to start design shortly, so it would be matured in service before we would need it

That said, I'm on the record as saying the Hunter is a perfectly good platform to extend production for the Hobart replacement. I think that once the first three are built we will have an efficient and mature production line, with subsequent hulls proving to be effective, efficient and upgradable in successive flights.

I would have a view that the fewer classes of ship that we have, the better our ability to sustainably manage them. One type of tier 1, perhaps with a couple of derivitives and a series of flights. One type of Tier 2. And one patrol craft (I had hoped for the Arafura here, but oh well).

downunderblue said:

Hopefully it will be clarified soon (the ABC article mentioned as such), but logic says (for the first 3 ships at least) that the RAN will get the same design being built for the JMSDF.

That being said I can't find a lot of info as to what configuration MHI is building for FFM 10-12, moreover if the JMSDF will be ordering any more ships from 13+. It was originally meant to be a 24 hull buy, then cut to 12 so it seems a little opaque. Any 13+ hulls will come into the desired RAN construction timeframes so we'll likely get whatever's being offered at that point in time.

I heard (trying to source where atm but can't ) that the JMSDF is seeking an upgraded design to add more AAW capability, by upgrading MHI's OPY-2 AESA radar to add another band (S/L?) on-top of the short range X band. This was pictured in the "Upgraded Mogami" model displayed @ IODS24 and makes sense when coupled with the increased 32 cell Mk41.magazine. Can we assume that this is what the RAN will receive?

It seems all up in the air ATM but I we should all know more soon.

Click to expand...

Hulls 13 to 24 are meant to be the Evolved Mogami.

downunderblue said:

Hopefully it will be clarified soon (the ABC article mentioned as such), but logic says (for the first 3 ships at least) that the RAN will get the same design being built for the JMSDF.

That being said I can't find a lot of info as to what configuration MHI is building for FFM 10-12, moreover if the JMSDF will be ordering any more ships from 13+. It was originally meant to be a 24 hull buy, then cut to 12 so it seems a little opaque. Any 13+ hulls will come into the desired RAN construction timeframes so we'll likely get whatever's being offered at that point in time.

I heard (trying to source where atm but can't ) that the JMSDF is seeking an upgraded design to add more AAW capability, by upgrading MHI's OPY-2 AESA radar to add another band (S/L?) on-top of the short range X band. This was pictured in the "Upgraded Mogami" model displayed @ IODS24 and makes sense when coupled with the increased 32 cell Mk41.magazine. Can we assume that this is what the RAN will receive?

It seems all up in the air ATM but I we should all know more soon.

Click to expand...

Originally 22, as far as I can discover. Cut to 12 original spec ships, with the intention of ordering an improved Mogami in place of the cancelled originals. 10 have been laid down, 9 launched so far. All scheduled to be commissioned by 2028. The first 10 are being built FFBNW VLS, but funding has been allocated for 16 Mk41 VLS to be fitted to them. 133x16.3m, 3900 tons standard, 5250 full load,

Last year, Mitsubishi said it had been selected as prime contractor for 12 of the next frigate class, "New FFM", 142m x 17.4m, 6200 tons full load, 32 Mk41 VLS, etc.
Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

This year that was renamed "upgraded Mogami" & slimmed down slightly to 17.0m beam. 4880 tons standard, perhaps about 6000 full load. Building is planned to start next year (2025), two launched in 2027, three delivered by 2029 & all commissioned by 2036.
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

All that's reported as from either Japanese official sources or MHI, so it's as good as you're likely to get, & seems rather solid.

Perhaps all these ships will be equipped with the new A-sam, supposedly derived from the Type 03 Chu-sam, but it's slimmer & lighter, & with a booster. This (Korean?) link says the naval variant is called the Type 23
Type 03 surface-to-air missile

swerve said:

Originally 22, as far as I can discover. Cut to 12 original spec ships, with the intention of ordering an improved Mogami in place of the cancelled originals. 10 have been laid down, 9 launched so far. All scheduled to be commissioned by 2028. The first 10 are being built FFBNW VLS, but funding has been allocated for 16 Mk41 VLS to be fitted to them. 133x16.3m, 3900 tons standard, 5250 full load,

Last year, Mitsubishi said it had been selected as prime contractor for 12 of the next frigate class, "New FFM", 142m x 17.4m, 6200 tons full load, 32 Mk41 VLS, etc.
Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

This year that was renamed "upgraded Mogami" & slimmed down slightly to 17.0m beam. 4880 tons standard, perhaps about 6000 full load. Building is planned to start next year (2025), two launched in 2027, three delivered by 2029 & all commissioned by 2036.
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

All that's reported as from either Japanese official sources or MHI, so it's as good as you're likely to get, & seems rather solid.

Perhaps all these ships will be equipped with the new A-sam, supposedly derived from the Type 03 Chu-sam, but it's slimmer & lighter, & with a booster. This (Korean?) link says the naval variant is called the Type 23
Type 03 surface-to-air missile

Click to expand...

Nice summary.
Also, what I’ve read -Improved systems throughout and habitability, still with 90 core crew. Not only longer and wider than the 30FFM Mogami but also taller with the bridge now sitting much higher up-well above the main gun, reorientation of the mast with additional panels for aaw, increased range, new sam, new type 12 ssm and space for future growth. +likely the integration of nsms, complementing the new longer range ssm.
Timeline- 2 or possibly 3 built from 2025, delivered 2027, commissioned 2029. 12 total delivered by 2033, all commissioned 35/36.(3 or more for RAN would alter this.)

If the design is selected next year, the government can technically say the ship is currently in production.
A third built in 2025 can be delivered to RAN in 2029, 2030 commissioning as planned.
-2025/26 to 2029/30, probably training, maybe-leasing or owning Mogami/s.

swerve said:

Originally 22, as far as I can discover. Cut to 12 original spec ships, with the intention of ordering an improved Mogami in place of the cancelled originals. 10 have been laid down, 9 launched so far. All scheduled to be commissioned by 2028. The first 10 are being built FFBNW VLS, but funding has been allocated for 16 Mk41 VLS to be fitted to them. 133x16.3m, 3900 tons standard, 5250 full load,

Last year, Mitsubishi said it had been selected as prime contractor for 12 of the next frigate class, "New FFM", 142m x 17.4m, 6200 tons full load, 32 Mk41 VLS, etc.
Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

This year that was renamed "upgraded Mogami" & slimmed down slightly to 17.0m beam. 4880 tons standard, perhaps about 6000 full load. Building is planned to start next year (2025), two launched in 2027, three delivered by 2029 & all commissioned by 2036.
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

All that's reported as from either Japanese official sources or MHI, so it's as good as you're likely to get, & seems rather solid.

Perhaps all these ships will be equipped with the new A-sam, supposedly derived from the Type 03 Chu-sam, but it's slimmer & lighter, & with a booster. This (Korean?) link says the naval variant is called the Type 23
Type 03 surface-to-air missile

Click to expand...

Mitsubishi is manufacturing MK41 VLS systems under licence from LM and their first system has been completed and installed in the 7th Mogami (JS Niyodo) and the 8th (JS Yubetsu) during their construction. VLS sets will become available for retrofit to the first 6 Mogamis over the next 2 years. All future vessels will be built with VLS installed. (see post #9431)

The original plan was for 22 Mogamis but that has been cut to 12 with the development of the upgraded Mogami. The intention is to build 12 of these making a total of 24 in the two versions.

Japan's Mogami-class Frigates Will Start Getting VLS in FY 2024 - Naval News

swerve said:

Originally 22, as far as I can discover. Cut to 12 original spec ships, with the intention of ordering an improved Mogami in place of the cancelled originals. 10 have been laid down, 9 launched so far. All scheduled to be commissioned by 2028. The first 10 are being built FFBNW VLS, but funding has been allocated for 16 Mk41 VLS to be fitted to them. 133x16.3m, 3900 tons standard, 5250 full load,

Last year, Mitsubishi said it had been selected as prime contractor for 12 of the next frigate class, "New FFM", 142m x 17.4m, 6200 tons full load, 32 Mk41 VLS, etc.
Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

This year that was renamed "upgraded Mogami" & slimmed down slightly to 17.0m beam. 4880 tons standard, perhaps about 6000 full load. Building is planned to start next year (2025), two launched in 2027, three delivered by 2029 & all commissioned by 2036.
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

All that's reported as from either Japanese official sources or MHI, so it's as good as you're likely to get, & seems rather solid.

Perhaps all these ships will be equipped with the new A-sam, supposedly derived from the Type 03 Chu-sam, but it's slimmer & lighter, & with a booster. This (Korean?) link says the naval variant is called the Type 23
Type 03 surface-to-air missile

Click to expand...

swerve said:

Originally 22, as far as I can discover. Cut to 12 original spec ships, with the intention of ordering an improved Mogami in place of the cancelled originals. 10 have been laid down, 9 launched so far. All scheduled to be commissioned by 2028. The first 10 are being built FFBNW VLS, but funding has been allocated for 16 Mk41 VLS to be fitted to them. 133x16.3m, 3900 tons standard, 5250 full load,

Last year, Mitsubishi said it had been selected as prime contractor for 12 of the next frigate class, "New FFM", 142m x 17.4m, 6200 tons full load, 32 Mk41 VLS, etc.
Japan's MHI shows 'New FFM' Frigate at Indopacific 2023

This year that was renamed "upgraded Mogami" & slimmed down slightly to 17.0m beam. 4880 tons standard, perhaps about 6000 full load. Building is planned to start next year (2025), two launched in 2027, three delivered by 2029 & all commissioned by 2036.
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia

All that's reported as from either Japanese official sources or MHI, so it's as good as you're likely to get, & seems rather solid.

Perhaps all these ships will be equipped with the new A-sam, supposedly derived from the Type 03 Chu-sam, but it's slimmer & lighter, & with a booster. This (Korean?) link says the naval variant is called the Type 23
Type 03 surface-to-air missile

Click to expand...

Swerve, that dovetails in with what I've read so we are talking about a design that starts building next year when the government makes their final decision. It's predecessor is already in the water and as mentioned earlier in this thread, the possiblity of the J.M.S.D.F. basing one or two ships in our region for familiarization and assistance in training before our own potential hulls hit the water is one of the most logical ideas around defence I've heard in years. I'm hoping clear heads prevail because it's so rare.

Remembering we have an election next year and things may change.

The Coalition tend to focus on smaller numbers of more capable ships and a lager army, Labor tend to look to greater numbers of good enough ships and a smaller, but higher tech army.

I have no idea how this will effect things going forward, but Dutton has shown he is prepared to make massive rapid changes with minimal consultation.

That said the upgraded Mogami is very attractive, not only for the intended GPF role, but it's capabilities in mine warfare and UUV, USV, and UAV operation. It can not only potentially replace the ANZACs going forward, but also the MCMVs, while introducing new roles, such as mine laying.

Volkodav said:

Remembering we have an election next year and things may change.

The Coalition tend to focus on smaller numbers of more capable ships and a lager army, Labor tend to look to greater numbers of good enough ships and a smaller, but higher tech army.

I have no idea how this will effect things going forward, but Dutton has shown he is prepared to make massive rapid changes with minimal consultation.

That said the upgraded Mogami is very attractive, not only for the intended GPF role, but it's capabilities in mine warfare and UUV, USV, and UAV operation. It can not only potentially replace the ANZACs going forward, but also the MCMVs, while introducing new roles, such as mine laying.

Click to expand...

Hopefully, if they get in, the Coalition will see these are the more capable ships. With a significantly lower cost than the Hobarts and Hunters we will get more bang for our bucks. Let's hope common sense prevails and we end up with a rare bipartisan approach to this.

iambuzzard said:

Hopefully, if they get in, the Coalition will see these are the more capable ships. With a significantly lower cost than the Hobarts and Hunters we will get more bang for our bucks. Let's hope common sense prevails and we end up with a rare bipartisan approach to this.

Click to expand...

I don't think the Coalition has raised any significant concern with the outputs from the surface combatant review, or the recent defence strategy and integrated investment program. To date Coalition announcements have aligned positively with the GPF program, and investments such as Henderson. Their attack points have been less about the actions, more about the tempo. So I doubt they would upend it. Given the potential for an election in first quarter next year, it would be interesting to see if Labour select a final platform before then.

Regardless of who wins the next election, there will be a strategy and IIP update in 2026 (on the 2 year proviso), so there will be a chance to treak direction at that point.

The gorilla in the room will be Trump, and I would think there will need to be some adjustments based on where he goes. I can't see him bringing more stability to the region, so I have a feeling our defence links to S Korea and Japan are going to become closer, and our plans will need to be accelerated.

John Fedup said:

Similar cost for 6 conventional versus 5 NP, NFW, ever. Perhaps some additional capability with NP but the cost-capability ratio sucks big time!! For countries that can afford NP, submarines yes, carriers, yes if you are China or the USA......and France because it they want to support their nuclear industry despite the cost.

Click to expand...

The RFI would be to see what proposals the market has to offer as new tech, I suspect the thinking is to see what naval applications can be derived from the civilian SMR developments. Maybe the question being asked is an SMR worthwhile in a cruiser instead of a multi turbine system because a ship this size would be looking at 100MW+ for power requirements.
Which leads to the next thought that is this an AUKUS project with the potential to involve Japan and/or South Korea as a AB successor to share development costs?
Japan's already in GCAP and are keen to build a partnership with Australia in the GPF because they can see the benefits of not relying on US tech.

old faithful said:

Speculation is that the election will be called late January or early February 2025 as that time line suits the incumbent government better strategically.

Click to expand...

Apparently there is only 3 suitable dates.

the latest an election can be held for both houses is 17 May. The federal budget pencilled in for March 25 – well before its usual May timeslot, and another indicator that a May election is looking probable. So unless there is a double dissolution election will probably be May.