Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
You’re talking about a 7000 ton ship with a quoted purchase price of around $A200. It might be a useful ship, but it is not an ECC replacement. It might have been a good choice as an Arafura substitute, but it was not available when the decision to acquire those was taken. (And, to be fair, the growing significance of drones was probably under estimated.). If you want to use it as an MFU, it would need some armament - indeed, even if only for a research and surveillance asset it should have some.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
If we were choosing an opv now, it would probably be the 95m sakura class from Japan or Fassmers opv 90mk II from Germany.
Both under construction currently…


 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
That makes a lot of sense, Sammy. So, the Hunters will have 42 rounds loaded in the Mk.49s plus a mix of ESSM, SM-2 and Tomahawk in the Mk.41 VLS, the 127mm gun, 8 NSM, and 2 x 30mm . Quite an echidna!!!! Conroy was talking about up to 128 rounds of ESSM in the Evolved Mogamis. If they are only getting 1 x 11 round SeaRAM that's still quite a loadout.
You left out the SM-6 which has been ordered and is intended for the Hobarts & Hunters. HMAS Sydney fired one in 2024.

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...rnment-push-provide-adf-enhanced-capabilities

It looks like a good layered defence capability.
 

Massive

Well-Known Member
If we were choosing an opv now, it would probably be the 95m sakura class from Japan or Fassmers opv 90mk II from Germany.
Feel this is not quite correct.

If we were looking for a constabulary vessel, I feel that the Arafura is well suited - just need more.

If instead we want a Tier 3 combatant, a completely different question, then the answer is likely 2500 tonnes at a minimum to get the range and endurance you need for the Australian operational environment.

Regards,

Massive
 

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Feel this is not quite correct.

If we were looking for a constabulary vessel, I feel that the Arafura is well suited - just need more.

If instead we want a Tier 3 combatant, a completely different question, then the answer is likely 2500 tonnes at a minimum to get the range and endurance you need for the Australian operational environment.

Regards,

Massive
Always felt we chose too small a vessel for our OPV requirement.
That said, we have the Arafura’s very slowly coming into service, so let’s just stick with that constant and exploit fully what they have to offer.
Yes add to their numbers.

Cheers S
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
Always felt we chose too small a vessel for our OPV requirement.
That said, we have the Arafura’s very slowly coming into service, so let’s just stick with that constant and exploit fully what they have to offer.
Yes add to their numbers.

Cheers S
At least give them a decent gun. 57mm?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Thanks, I forgot about the SM-6. What's the planned missile loadout with the Mogamis?
The initial batch of 3x Mogami FFM for RAN will have the Mk.45 MOD 4 gun, the 32x cell ‘strike length’ VLS, ESSM Block 2, 8x naval strike missile canister launched missiles, 11x round SeaRAM launcher firing RIM-116 Block II Rolling Airframe missiles, a pair of torpedo launchers and a pair of remote weapon station mounted gun systems (type has not presently been revealed), plus the MH-60R Romeo weapon system and perhaps a drone capability of some type.

Future iterations are likely to expand on these weapons options, but will likely require sensor and combat system upgrades as well as additional weapons integration. SM-2, Tomahawk and perhaps SM-6 are likely future candidates.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
The initial batch of 3x Mogami FFM for RAN will have the Mk.45 MOD 4 gun, the 32x cell ‘strike length’ VLS, ESSM Block 2, 8x naval strike missile canister launched missiles, 11x round SeaRAM launcher firing RIM-116 Block II Rolling Airframe missiles, a pair of torpedo launchers and a pair of remote weapon station mounted gun systems (type has not presently been revealed), plus the MH-60R Romeo weapon system and perhaps a drone capability of some type.

Future iterations are likely to expand on these weapons options, but will likely require sensor and combat system upgrades as well as additional weapons integration. SM-2, Tomahawk and perhaps SM-6 are likely future candidates.
Any idea of the potential magazine capacity of reloads for the RIM-116?
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
SM-2, Tomahawk and perhaps SM-6 are likely future candidates.
The minister did state
The new stealth frigates will also have the ability to fire SM-2 and SM-6 missiles, the most advanced air and missile defence weapons in the world. These missiles, which are also being deployed on our Hobart-class destroyers and on our future Hunter-class frigates, will enable the Navy to strike maritime, land and air targets at long range. The Mogami-class frigate will also have the ability to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles, giving the Navy more vessels that can strike at longer distances — and taking our general purpose frigates’ strike range from 275 kilometres to 2,500 kilometres, an almost tenfold increase in strike range.
However, a forward looking ministerial statement isn't the same as test firing before IOC. But clearly there is an intention. The Japanese are familiar with these munitions, their aegis ships I believe run a similar interface overlay as our hobart refits will do, with a local combat system type overlay front end. I wonder if their Mogami combat system is based off that same overlay interface with libraries, kinda how 9LV does with aegis.

I suspect there is more going on in the combat system space than is in public domain. Possibly they are confident they can integrate the Japanese radar with 9LV and put 9LV on the Mogamis existing computer network. Most are essentially high powered x86 servers in commercial racks these days the custom silicon stuff went out in the late 90s. Or 9LV interfaces over Mogami systems. At the core, things tend to be API's and software calls to those API's, so as long as Japan and Australia trust each other, they could certainly do that, and integration doesn't have to be ultra hard. Pure speculation, but still.

I suspect the first 3 ships will basically operate as is for a short period of time, perhaps a year or two, and then they will push newer systems. There are multiple parallel developments happening, so there is no reason for a hard and fast announcement at this stage, keep both open ended and don't stack up the risks.

Mogami armed with ESSM II, NSM, SM-6, modern Tomahawk, NSM and RIM116, torpedo's (mk54? Mu90s?) and a 127mm will be a formidable ship with a Mh60R as well and perhaps drone systems, excellent sensors, radar, sonar, etc. That is a *PRETTY* capable low end combatant.
 
Last edited:

Lolcake

Active Member
A practical compromise for New Zealand’s frigate replacement could be for NZ to take the initial Japan-built upgraded Mogamis, while Australia uses the follow-on batches to move towards a more Australianised fit, including potential CEAFAR integration.

The Mogami’s radar fit is capable, but OPY-2 is an X-band AESA system, whereas CEAFAR gives Australia an superior X and S-band radar architecture already used across the fleet. That matters for capatbility, commonality, sustainment and future upgrades too.

NZ would still get a capable frigate well suited to its requirements, while Australia avoids locking itself into a small orphan fleet of early-standard ships

Thoughts?
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
The minister did state


However, a forward looking ministerial statement isn't the same as test firing before IOC. But clearly there is an intention. The Japanese are familiar with these munitions, their aegis ships I believe run a similar interface overlay as our hobart refits will do, with a local combat system type overlay front end. I wonder if their Mogami combat system is based off that same overlay interface with libraries, kinda how 9LV does with aegis.

I suspect there is more going on in the combat system space than is in public domain. Possibly they are confident they can integrate the Japanese radar with 9LV and put 9LV on the Mogamis existing computer network. Most are essentially high powered x86 servers in commercial racks these days the custom silicon stuff went out in the late 90s. Or 9LV interfaces over Mogami systems. At the core, things tend to be API's and software calls to those API's, so as long as Japan and Australia trust each other, they could certainly do that, and integration doesn't have to be ultra hard. Pure speculation, but still.

I suspect the first 3 ships will basically operate as is for a short period of time, perhaps a year or two, and then they will push newer systems. There are multiple parallel developments happening, so there is no reason for a hard and fast announcement at this stage, keep both open ended and don't stack up the risks.

Mogami armed with ESSM II, NSM, SM-6, modern Tomahawk, NSM and RIM116, torpedo's (mk54? Mu90s?) and a 127mm will be a formidable ship with a Mh60R as well and perhaps drone systems, excellent sensors, radar, sonar, etc. That is a *PRETTY* capable low end combatant.
It also makes it virtually a Tier 1 combatant. It will have the same 32VLS cells as Hunter.
 

iambuzzard

Well-Known Member
A practical compromise for New Zealand’s frigate replacement could be for NZ to take the initial Japan-built upgraded Mogamis, while Australia uses the follow-on batches to move towards a more Australianised fit, including potential CEAFAR integration.

The Mogami’s radar fit is capable, but OPY-2 is an X-band AESA system, whereas CEAFAR gives Australia an superior X and S-band radar architecture already used across the fleet. That matters for capatbility, commonality, sustainment and future upgrades too.

NZ would still get a capable frigate well suited to its requirements, while Australia avoids locking itself into a small orphan fleet of early-standard ships

Thoughts?
As long as the Australian Government commits to extending the contract for extra hulls beyond 11.
As I have said before, we need to change the mindset from fixed contracts to continuous builds of upgraded future hulls. The Japanese and Americans follow this pattern. We need to join them to avoid any valleys of death in shipbuilding.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The minister did state


However, a forward looking ministerial statement isn't the same as test firing before IOC. But clearly there is an intention. The Japanese are familiar with these munitions, their aegis ships I believe run a similar interface overlay as our hobart refits will do, with a local combat system type overlay front end. I wonder if their Mogami combat system is based off that same overlay interface with libraries, kinda how 9LV does with aegis.

I suspect there is more going on in the combat system space than is in public domain. Possibly they are confident they can integrate the Japanese radar with 9LV and put 9LV on the Mogamis existing computer network. Most are essentially high powered x86 servers in commercial racks these days the custom silicon stuff went out in the late 90s. Or 9LV interfaces over Mogami systems. At the core, things tend to be API's and software calls to those API's, so as long as Japan and Australia trust each other, they could certainly do that, and integration doesn't have to be ultra hard. Pure speculation, but still.

I suspect the first 3 ships will basically operate as is for a short period of time, perhaps a year or two, and then they will push newer systems. There are multiple parallel developments happening, so there is no reason for a hard and fast announcement at this stage, keep both open ended and don't stack up the risks.

Mogami armed with ESSM II, NSM, SM-6, modern Tomahawk, NSM and RIM116, torpedo's (mk54? Mu90s?) and a 127mm will be a formidable ship with a Mh60R as well and perhaps drone systems, excellent sensors, radar, sonar, etc. That is a *PRETTY* capable low end combatant.
He didn’t mention which vessels ( first 3 or last 3 for example…) nor over what timeline. As even the Hobart class require a fairly extensive upgrade to run Tomahawk “properly” I’ll be astonished if the first batch of 3x Mogamis offer such a capability.


Even so, the first batch represent a substantial uplift in capability compared to the ANZAC Class from all reports, so we are getting an excellent capability already. Future upgrades will be the icing on the cake, so to speak.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
He didn’t mention which vessels ( first 3 or last 3 for example…) nor over what timeline. As even the Hobart class require a fairly extensive upgrade to run Tomahawk “properly” I’ll be astonished if the first batch of 3x Mogamis offer such a capability.
What's the old saying from yes minister.. its just a press release.. Its not under oath.. But was a particularly bold statement. Adding SM-2/SM-6/TLAM seemed like they had a plan. Hence my speculation. No confirmation from Japan or Navy on really any of that.

TBH I will be surprised if they have ESSM capability on delivery. Which honestly, again, isn't a huge issue, it will be 12-18 months training, trials, procedures, certifications, inspections etc. Why hold up the entire build for something that can be software upgraded at a later stage? I guess we will see.. I wonder if they will try a SM-2/SM-6 launch from an Anzac... As a test for 9lv...

https://www.minister.defence.gov.au...nt-commence-collins-class-life-type-extension LOTE on HMAS Farncomb to begin at the end of the month. It appears from some news reports that the upgrades on engines and generators will now be on a if required basis. Planned upgrades to ageing submarine fleet scaled back
Bit disappointed with the MTU engines, motor, battery upgrade being potentially side-lined. It will be a long time before we get 3 SSNs and actual deployable capabilities. 6 conventional subs are still going to be useful.
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
[
What's the old saying from yes minister.. its just a press release.. Its not under oath.. But was a particularly bold statement. Adding SM-2/SM-6/TLAM seemed like they had a plan. Hence my speculation. No confirmation from Japan or Navy on really any of that.

TBH I will be surprised if they have ESSM capability on delivery. Which honestly, again, isn't a huge issue, it will be 12-18 months training, trials, procedures, certifications, inspections etc. Why hold up the entire build for something that can be software upgraded at a later stage? I guess we will see.. I wonder if they will try a SM-2/SM-6 launch from an Anzac... As a test for 9lv...


Bit disappointed with the MTU engines, motor, battery upgrade being potentially side-lined. It will be a long time before we get 3 SSNs and actual deployable capabilities. 6 conventional subs are still going to be useful.
Think they should have committed to upgrading atleast 4 of the youngest subs over 10 years(with all the bells and whistles) and then retire Farncomb and Collins once the first 2 upgraded boats return to service. +2 Virginias by 2036.

IMO, better than all 6 boats getting partial upgrades where necessary over 12 years. I just cant see Collins + Farncomb making it past the mid 2030s.
 
Top