Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

[ngatimozart]

You are right about the issues (esp the integration of CEAFAR2). With RAN building the Hunter class now, it will help de-risk the program and soak up the NRE cost for the integration. In that sense, it is benefits RNZN by having a mature platform at the point of selection.

However, does RNZN need a platform with those type of capabilities (Aegis/CEAFAR2)? I guess the shipyards are anticipating RNZN requirements being less complex, less resource/manpower intensive.

I don't think that CEAFAR is on the RNZN / NZ MOD radar. I think that they would be more interested in SPY-6 / SPY-7 because that would be seen as less risky and probably not as expensive. There are far more SPY-6 / SPY-7 radars in service than CEAFAR.

A couple key lines from that article:
"He added that there must also be a decline in U.S. military strength"
This will not necessarily occur as I've previously stated.

"The first would be deployed in the southeastern waters of Taiwan to contain Guam, the second would be deployed in the northeastern waters to restrain U.S. and Japanese forces"
Neither of the active PLAN carriers are capable of containing the combined JMSDF and US 7th Fleet or Guam, the most notable capability they bring is their ASW helicopters. Fujian won't be finished fitting out and shakedown until 2027 at the earliest. So while the PLAN technically may have three CBG on paper by 2027, it would not be a force to fight a war with.

The PLAN, PLANAF, PLAAF and PLA-RF (RF=Rocket Force) are more than capable of doing preventing the USN & JMSDF surface and air forces from getting within strike range of mainland China. They have devoted a lot of time, money and research into that. It is a mistake to underestimate their abilities. The USN only has 11 CVN and at present only two of those are in the Indo Pacific. The combat radius of the USN F-18s and F-35 are approximately 700 nautical miles, give or take, so all the PLA has to do is to prevent them from approaching to within 1,000 nautical miles of mainland China. It's called A2/AD and the PLA is undertaking that with a vengeance. The USN and USAF don't have the greatest of capabilities in that area, and they don't have enough 5th gen missiles to effectively mitigate it, that's if they can get within range to launch those missiles.

Also start pumping out standoff munitions like LRASM by the truck load and integrating it on as many platforms as possible.

That's great but you still have to get them within range of their targets.

 

[devo99]

It's called A2/AD and the PLA is undertaking that with a vengeance. The USN and USAF don't have the greatest of capabilities in that area, and they don't have enough 5th gen missiles to effectively mitigate it, that's if they can get within range to launch those missiles.

I'm well aware of the PLA's A2/AD strategy but it's no forcefield and there are strategies to counter it and break the kill chain. The US has invested considerably in counter-ISR capabilities such as SM-3 which can create blind spots in the network. The PLA is going to have to cover Japan, Guam and the Philippine Sea while dealing with their ISR network being constantly targeted.
I don't believe that I underestimate their capabilities, I just don't consider their strategy to be foolproof.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm well aware of the PLA's A2/AD strategy but it's no forcefield and there are strategies to counter it and break the kill chain. The US has invested considerably in counter-ISR capabilities such as SM-3 which can create blind spots in the network. The PLA is going to have to cover Japan, Guam and the Philippine Sea while dealing with their ISR network being constantly targeted.
I don't believe that I underestimate their capabilities, I just don't consider their strategy to be foolproof.

Maybe so, but it's not a given that the US is going to be able to fully counter the PLA A2/AD.

 

[Bob53]

We don't allow them too because generally speaking they can't play good rugby

Seriously, I don't know but I served with Aussie immigrants in both the RNZAF and RNZN. There weren't as many as the Poms but there were some.

Sorry all…was referring to Australian defence recruits. I was reading that only a very small % of the skilled migrant intake has a trade or engineering technical skill set. Lots more professional managers, sales and IT but trades/ engineering around less than 1% of migrant intake which is surprising when we have a huge trades and engineering shortfall across the board.

 

[John Fedup]

I don't think that CEAFAR is on the RNZN / NZ MOD radar. I think that they would be more interested in SPY-6 / SPY-7 because that would be seen as less risky and probably not as expensive. There are far more SPY-6 / SPY-7 radars in service than CEAFAR.

The PLAN, PLANAF, PLAAF and PLA-RF (RF=Rocket Force) are more than capable of doing preventing the USN & JMSDF surface and air forces from getting within strike range of mainland China. They have devoted a lot of time, money and research into that. It is a mistake to underestimate their abilities. The USN only has 11 CVN and at present only two of those are in the Indo Pacific. The combat radius of the USN F-18s and F-35 are approximately 700 nautical miles, give or take, so all the PLA has to do is to prevent them from approaching to within 1,000 nautical miles of mainland China. It's called A2/AD and the PLA is undertaking that with a vengeance. The USN and USAF don't have the greatest of capabilities in that area, and they don't have enough 5th gen missiles to effectively mitigate it, that's if they can get within range to launch those missiles.

That's great but you still have to get them within range of their targets.

I don’t think any SPY7 radars have been at sea yet, still a work in progress. Japan will be first then Spain. Canada will be third…..hopefully.

 

[koxinga]

I don't think that CEAFAR is on the RNZN / NZ MOD radar. I think that they would be more interested in SPY-6 / SPY-7 because that would be seen as less risky and probably not as expensive. There are far more SPY-6 / SPY-7 radars in service than CEAFAR.

If they want SPY-6, then a Constellation class?

Regardless on the eventual fleet configuration, I don't see RNZN operating large number of frigates. A bespoke design for a small number of ships would lead to higher integration cost. Of course, if decisions are made by us armchair admirals on the basis of common sense, the Forces will have less politics to deal with.

I don’t think any SPY7 radars have been at sea yet, still a work in progress. Japan will be first then Spain. Canada will be third…..hopefully.

For a 2035 timeline, they (SPY-7) are reasonable targets.

 

[spoz]

There are considerable numbers of the various ethnic groups in the ADF. It tends not to be the immigrant generation (apart from Brits, Canucks, Kiwis and Yanks who migrate to join) but their children. So we have a number of second or third generation Australian members whose ethnicity is Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arab of a variety of sorts, northern and southern European and South American of a variety of countries of origin; and we are starting to get sub Saharan Africans. That is in addition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have always been there of course; TIs in the Navy particularly. And it’s not a new phenomenon; 25 years ago I worked for a General whose ethnicity was Iraqi/Syrian/Lebanese.

 

[Systems Adict]

Does anyone know why the first Flight III Arleigh-Burke Destroyer JACK H. LUCAS (DDG 125), wasn't fitted with SPY-7

Would have thought that the US Navy would want the biggest / best / newest bit of kit on one of their own ships ??

 

[John Fedup]

Does anyone know why the first Flight III Arleigh-Burke Destroyer JACK H. LUCAS (DDG 125), wasn't fitted with SPY-7

Would have thought that the US Navy would want the biggest / best / newest bit of kit on one of their own ships ??

Really don’t know but I think SPY 6 was specified for Flight III AB before SPY 7 (a land based radar) was considered for naval use by Japan, Spain, and Canada. As for the advantages of either, the more knowledgeable can jump in.

 

[Todjaeger]

Really don’t know but I think SPY 6 was specified for Flight III AB before SPY 7 (a land based radar) was considered for naval use by Japan, Spain, and Canada. As for the advantages of either, the more knowledgeable can jump in.

I do not consider myself more knowledgeable about the topic, but am willing to chime in with my thoughts (for what those are worth...)

USS Jack H. Lucas (DDG-125) the first of the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class DDG's to be built for the USN. What I suspect is the important bit and why the design flight is to be fitted with SPY-6 and not SPY-7 has to do with when the design work was completed, as well as when the orders were placed.

I would need to do some digging to see exactly when this all happened, but the vessel was (to be) named Jack H. Lucas by the US SecNav on 17 Sept. 2016, more than three years before she was laid down. What that infers is that the first Flight III DDG was ordered on or before that date, and in order for that to have happened the detailed design work would need to have been completed.

AFAIK the first AN/SPY-7 array did not start testing until ~2018 and is not expected to be fitted aboard a ship (or at least a ship that is expected to be in commission) until ~2026 with the first of the Spanish Armada's F110-class frigates as the AN/SPY-7(V)2.

I believe, but could be mistaken, that the first AN/SPY-7 array was for the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) as the Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) which is a land-based installation. The LRDR itself has dual monostatic panels which measure 60' x 60' or ~18m x 18x.

Based off that, it would seem that at the time the design work for the Flight III was being done, the SPY-7 was not far enough along to be designed to fit aboard, and/or there as not enough lead time to get orders for SPY-7 which could be fitted to a vessel being laid down in 2019. Since the SPY-7 is supposed to be scale, it might be that later versions of the Flight III might be fitted with those instead of SPY-6. However, since SPY-6(V)4 is being developed to be back-fitted aboard Flight IIA DDG's, it might be that the USN is happy with the Raytheon radar and associated training, maintenance and logistics/supply chains established and does not see sufficient advantage adopting a new radar to replace a radar that is just entering service. One does need to keep in mind that SPY-6(V)1 is for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class DDG's, but the (V)2 was developed for US amphibs and Nimitz-class CVN's, whilst the (V)3 is to serve aboard Gerald R. Ford-class CVN's and Constellation-class FFG's, that suggests that from the USN's perspective, SPY-6 does quite well.

 

[Going Boeing]

I don't think that CEAFAR is on the RNZN / NZ MOD radar. I think that they would be more interested in SPY-6 / SPY-7 because that would be seen as less risky and probably not as expensive. There are far more SPY-6 / SPY-7 radars in service than CEAFAR.

My recall of when CEAFAR was first proposed to the RAN was that it was offered to have better capability than the SPY-1D and was a lot cheaper. The SPY series has dominated the upper end of the market for many years and thus was premium priced. With very little information in the public domain, I can only assume that CEAFAR & SPY-6 are very similar in performance as they are both Active (AESA) but I’d be surprised if CEAFAR wasn’t still a lot cheaper to acquire. Through life costs would probably favour the SPY-6 due to the volume in service.

 

[JohnJT]

Does anyone know why the first Flight III Arleigh-Burke Destroyer JACK H. LUCAS (DDG 125), wasn't fitted with SPY-7

Would have thought that the US Navy would want the biggest / best / newest bit of kit on one of their own ships ??

Why do you think SPY-7 is better than SPY-6?
They are competing designs, SPY-6 from Raytheon, SPY-7 from Lockheed Martin. Raytheon won the contracts over LM to supply the USN next gen radar. There were several contracts (AB flt III, carriers, replacement of legacy SPY-1, etc.) and Raytheon won them all with their SPY-6 family.
Why Raytheon won is up for debate, but it's just like asking why did they select the YF-22 over the YF-23.

 

[Redlands18]

My recall of when CEAFAR was first proposed to the RAN was that it was offered to have better capability than the SPY-1D and was a lot cheaper. The SPY series has dominated the upper end of the market for many years and thus was premium priced. With very little information in the public domain, I can only assume that CEAFAR & SPY-6 are very similar in performance as they are both Active (AESA) but I’d be surprised if CEAFAR wasn’t still a lot cheaper to acquire. Through life costs would probably favour the SPY-6 due to the volume in service.

CEA also has the advantage of being an Australian owned entity with 600 employees. Australian Governments over the years have been guilty to often of not supporting Australian enterprises, it is great to see one come along with a World class product and been given the right level of support.

 

[Volkodav]

There are considerable numbers of the various ethnic groups in the ADF. It tends not to be the immigrant generation (apart from Brits, Canucks, Kiwis and Yanks who migrate to join) but their children. So we have a number of second or third generation Australian members whose ethnicity is Indian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arab of a variety of sorts, northern and southern European and South American of a variety of countries of origin; and we are starting to get sub Saharan Africans. That is in addition to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who have always been there of course; TIs in the Navy particularly. And it’s not a new phenomenon; 25 years ago I worked for a General whose ethnicity was Iraqi/Syrian/Lebanese.
[/QUOTE

Why do you think SPY-7 is better than SPY-6?
They are competing designs, SPY-6 from Raytheon, SPY-7 from Lockheed Martin. Raytheon won the contract over LM to supply the USN next gen radar. There were several contracts (AB flt III, carriers, replacement of legacy SPY-1, etc.) and Raytheon won them all with their SPY-6 family.
Why Raytheon won is up for debate, but it's just like asking why did they select the YF-22 over the YF-23.

It may well be the SPY-7 scales down more easily if you look at its application of Constellation and F-110, versus SPY-6 being selected for much larger platforms.

I have seen nothing specifically saying this and am just speculating. The litmus test will be if SPY-6 continues to be ordered.

 

[JohnJT]

It may well be the SPY-7 scales down more easily if you look at its application of Constellation and F-110, versus SPY-6 being selected for much larger platforms.

I have seen nothing specifically saying this and am just speculating. The litmus test will be if SPY-6 continues to be ordered.

The Constellation class is being fitted with SPY-6. The SPY-6 is just as scalable as SPY-7.
The USN has not selected SPY-7 for any of it's ship contracts. Raytheon has won them all.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I don't think CEA main advantage is cheapness. There are cheaper radars. Its sovereign, its of a different tech tree, and its local and can be developed with local priorities and needs. The CEA products AFAIK are more than competitive with anything out there, and our allies also have an interest in Australia exploring that technology and doing it ourselves. CEA has a close relationship with the RAN and its needs.

NZ particularly I think would be the case of not being interested, and arguably that is one of the key reasons they didn't do the ANZAC upgrades, because they didn't want to be locked into an Australian radar.

For a country with few combatants, and very wide open oceans, radars may have a different priority to those made for Mediterranean seas, or for a Navy who has a dozen super carriers and three largest air forces. But that doesn't mean its got a huge export market, Australia should understand that, its technology mostly for Australia. UK has their own, Neatherlands has their own, Danish have their own, etc.

The advantage of something like SPY-6 is its integrated with everyone and everything already. So for many nations that is going to be a huge advantage before you even get to performance. Sure your tied to the US, but the US consistently funds its development and integration.

It may well be the SPY-7 scales down more easily if you look at its application of Constellation and F-110, versus SPY-6 being selected for much larger platforms.

I think it comes down to how it was being pitched and packaged. SPY-6 was locked in with USN contracts, so anything SPY-6 is basically configured for the USN and then adapted to other applications. Fair enough. The SPY-7 was more or less targeting international sales, which they have been reasonably successful with, and as such packaged it for smaller ships. I don't really think its a technology question, but one where each supplier targeted a different market.

 

[Todjaeger]

I think it comes down to how it was being pitched and packaged. SPY-6 was locked in with USN contracts, so anything SPY-6 is basically configured for the USN and then adapted to other applications. Fair enough. The SPY-7 was more or less targeting international sales, which they have been reasonably successful with, and as such packaged it for smaller ships. I don't really think its a technology question, but one where each supplier targeted a different market.

Not sure this is entirely accurate. As near as I can tell, SPY-7 was/is an outgrowth of LockMart work on air/space search radars for BMD. What I suspect is that some of the materials science & engineering work done to develop the LRDR was determined to be scalable using gallium nitride (GaN) subarrays. However, I suspect that some of this R&D was happening partially in parallel with the AN/SPY-6, but also partially after. Had LockMart been further along, then it might have won the contracts in place of Raytheon.

 

[JohnJT]

Had LockMart been further along, then it might have won the contracts in place of Raytheon.

It was an open competition and all three competing companies were given the same time and money to come up with a solution to the USN's requirement.

In June 2009, after full and open competition, the program awarded three AMDR-S/RSC concept study contracts to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Each of the three contractors developed concepts for AMDR showing the major subsystems and expected features of the AMDR Suite. The Concept Studies phase concluded December 2009. In September 2010, three Technology Development (TD) contracts were awarded to refine each contractor's design concepts developed during the Concept Studies phase and to also mature key technologies. The program completed TD contracts in September 2012 and released a Request for Proposals for the Engineering and Manufacturing Development (E&MD) Phase in June 2012. Offeror proposals were received in July 2012 and the program office conducted an exhaustive and comprehensive review of proposals. AMDR successfully completed Milestone B in Sep 2013 and was authorized for entry into the E&MD Phase and designated an ACAT ID program in the Acquisition Decision Memorandum, dated October 4, 2013. The E&MD contract was awarded to Raytheon in October 2013.

Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR)

The AN/SPY-6(V)1 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) is the Navy's next generation radar system that will address Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Air Defense (AD) capability gaps identified in

www.navy.mil

 

[devo99]

Quick reminder that the USAF has been operating and cooperatively developing land based radar systems with CEA for some years now.
This particular photo is of the HPAR-64SG system in Alaska (note the inconspicuous Captain Burningham in the middle there).

 

[swerve]

For a country with few combatants, and very wide open oceans, radars may have a different priority to those made for Mediterranean seas, or for a Navy who has a dozen super carriers and three largest air forces. But that doesn't mean its got a huge export market, Australia should understand that, its technology mostly for Australia. UK has their own, Neatherlands has their own, Danish have their own, etc.

Denmark (Terma) only makes small radars. Reckoned to be good in their class, I think.