Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
No idea why RAN isn’t talking this up, but HMAS Sydney can be plainly seen with a full complement of Naval Strike Missiles, at Hawaii…

Opsec probably… :rolleyes:

View attachment 51438
IMO Defence PR is a sad joke. Just to take two examples, If you look at the ADF 'Sea' projects list on the official government site it still mentions building 12 OPVs and even has a nice picture of one with a 'proper' gun. In the case of the Phalanx CIWS it claims FOC for the upgrade of 12 units (which includes fitting them to the LHDs) will be completed by June 2024. But right at the end in both these articles it says, "Content is current as at July 2019"!


I know that the ADF is short of personnel but how much would it take to make sure that info provided on its official site is not 5 years out of date?

Tas (feeling disillusioned ...)
 

devo99

Well-Known Member
IMO Defence PR is a sad joke. Just to take two examples, If you look at the ADF 'Sea' projects list on the official government site it still mentions building 12 OPVs and even has a nice picture of one with a 'proper' gun. In the case of the Phalanx CIWS it claims FOC for the upgrade of 12 units (which includes fitting them to the LHDs) will be completed by June 2024. But right at the end in both these articles it says, "Content is current as at July 2019"!


I know that the ADF is short of personnel but how much would it take to make sure that info provided on its official site is not 5 years out of date?

Tas (feeling disillusioned ...)
They've started updating the RAN website but a bunch of stuff is still super outdated.
 

Going Boeing

Well-Known Member
Another article that I saw showed a pic of HMAS Hobart entering Pearl Harbour for RIMPAC 2024 so that would indicate that two of the RAN’s AWD’s are participating in the exercise.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

iambuzzard

Active Member
My radar knowledge is basic as well (I prefer engines), however from my research, and ex WEEO mates, I am aware of the following:
  • There are three sensors located on the Mogami mast below the antenna. The top and bottom ones are the NOLQ3E EW system. The middle one is the OPY2 radar.There is, unusually, only one radar on the Mogami.
  • The OPY2 is an x band system working in the 8-12 GHz range. It would be capable of detecting sea skimming missiles, and would provide a very high definition local environment. It's what would be typically paired to a NASAMS battery or used to track artillery, for instance. It can have some limitations discerning certain stealth techniques.
  • The Mogami doesn't have an s band capability in the 2-4 GHz range, or the L band 1-2 GHz, both optimised for long range monitoring, as would be included in a CEAFAR2 installation.
  • It uses AESA gallium nitride componentry, which is the latest technology, so it uses good stuff.
  • The OPY 2 is based on the earlier OPY1 and FPS (a multi band radar) systems used on other japanese frigates, and land based air warning setups. So its not a new radar and has a good pedigree.
  • Its made by Mitsubishi, who have been making radars since the 60s. They have well regarded ground and aircraft systems, which their naval range draw from.
Advanced systems have multiple different banded radars, mostly to cope with different conditions. Where one radar struggles, another can be more effective.

X band is however a good all rounder for a military application, if you have to choose. A single radar would noticeably keep cost down, which is an important principle with the Mogami.

I will note that the radar is paired to a well regarded optical/IR system with 360 degree coverage(multiple cameras around the ship). This is top shelf and better than on most other platforms. The EW package is pretty good as well, meaning the radar does not need to operate by itself as the only line of defence.

While S and L might be better at longer range detection, as X band can attenuate faster, you can counter this by increasing the energy. The THAAD TYP2 radar (another x band system) for instance is designed to see out upwards of 5,000km. Just don't stand in front of it though as it would fry you.

So, the Mogami, with the single OPY2 radar, is optimised for localised point detection and defence, however it can still use the radar for tracking to at least the horizon (the best any ship can do), and further for higher altitude threats. It's not in the same league as CEAFAR2, but probably more than suitable for its intended role with the Japanese Navy, and most likely our needs too.

The available literature on the new FFM indicates that an updated radar will be utilised for the revised platform, but no details have been provided. Models of the new FFM do however show a second radar panel on the mast, so expect perhaps an s band inclusion for improved AAW capability.
Thanks Sammy. Unlike a lot of people on this forum I don't have a lot have a lot of knowledge on the technicalities of what is discussed on this group but I have a keen interest in the future direction of our defence forces and what we face in the coming years. As an outsider I try to look at the big picture and try to keep my BS detector on full all the time! Lol.
As I see it the Mogami FFM seems the best option with a 127mm gun and 32 VLS. As long as the language issue is sorted and we have the option to upgrade to CEAFAR2.
Sammy C's explanation is very informative and even without CEAFAR2 initially the FFMs will be very effective additions to the fleet if we choose them.
Whatever we get must have room and power available to expand on the capabilities of the platform.
Look what we did to the Anzacs!
As long as we have decent AAW and ASW capabilities and the ability to upgrade the ships we should be ok.
I personally think we should think beyond the planned 11 hulls and have an ongoing ship building plan in place.
Have a rolling production line of future combatants sorted out now beyond the current plans.
The Hunter AAW destroyer variant or an alternative should be talked about now, not in ten years time.
Look at what the Japanese are doing with their ASEVs and future destroyers.
Plan now as tomorrow may be too late.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The real problem with the Korean and Japanese ships, if they are to be accepted in effectively unchanged form, is that the platform and combat management systems displays will be largely, although possibly not completely, in Japanese or Korean characters and languages. That MUST be converted to appropriate English for safe and effective operation by the RAN. That is not likely to be a small job; and it is one with which the designers are likely to be largely unfamiliar. It is not the same as doing it for a car or television, and anyway the people who would have to do so would not likely to be those who do cars and consumer goods.
If the Japanese & Koreans are offering these ships for export, then surely they'll have thought of that. They'll have taken it for granted that no foreign buyer would find Korean or Japanese language or script acceptable, & would expect the Roman alphabet & probably English.

The JMSDF & ROKN are accustomed to working with the USN, & I'm sure that they use English. They use a lot of foreign systems. Mitsubishi Electric (MELCO) makes the OPY-2 radar of the Mogami class. MELCO has delivered radars to the Philippines, & is working with Leonardo on radar development. Again, I'm sure it uses English.
 

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, that is almost certainly true, at least in part and for individual equipments. However, I was talking about the overall systems: CMS and IPMS, which of course are unique to each platform design; and at the margins, to individual ships. There, experience with Kockims, Blom and Voss, Navantia and Luerssen tells us there will be issues. As was the case with the classes from those builders these can of course be overcome, but the effort to do so can be considerable and often seems to be underestimated at the beginning of the process.
 

Scott Elaurant

Well-Known Member
Apologies if this is on the wrong thread but I think it is relevant to the Hunter frigate program. This is a link to a Tweet with a detailed illustration of the RCN CSC ship, which has just started construction, similar to the commencement of Hunter frigate construction in Adelaide. This illustration shows the weapons and systems being fitted on the CSC.

RCN CSC.jpg
 

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
River class construction starts 2025 for early 2030s delivery. 2050 for all 15. Just started prototype blocks.
Quicker build than the Hunter by about 2 years... We already have 3 completed blocks and 3 under construction, planned 2032 delivery, in service 2034.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
River class construction starts 2025 for early 2030s delivery. 2050 for all 15. Just started prototype blocks.
Quicker build than the Hunter by about 2 years... We already have 3 completed blocks and 3 under construction, planned 2032 delivery, in service 2034.
Open question as to whether our River(CSC) hits the water before RAN’s Hunter. My money would be on Hunter.
 

K.I.

New Member
Its pretty bad. We are retiring a class of ships, the backbone of the RAN, and the replacements are 10 years off.

It should be clear as well, the Anzacs are in terminal decline. While scrapping HMAS Anzac, improves some of the availability of the others of the class, it doesn't turn back time. With the loss of those ships, we may see a retention issue, as people start planning their lives around what is happening. So this also needs addressing, you need to give people hope. Some ships are definitely in better condition than others, however with the upgrade, it may deem multiple other ships not worthy and scrap them. They have been worked very, very, very hard.

With a SFA with Japan, the RAN can start posting people to terrible unexciting places like Tokyo, to learn and observe the building of the new class of ships, in a new exciting arrangement with Japan, doing some sea time with the Japanese navy. Retention bonuses are nice, but ultimately, paying money to people to sit at a desk they don't want to sit at, doesn't fix the core reason why people leave if there is nothing to do.

The Japanese also see potential in this. They too have retention problems and recruitment issues, particularly with young people in uniform and out.

Weapons and platforms are only part of the equation. The LHD's for example, don't fire many missiles, but they have been very critical platforms for the ADF. With no sailors, with no soldiers, and no aviators, there is no defence force. That said, the ships being offered are actually pretty good. I do believe the RAN sees it as generally do able. The RAN still has Hobarts and hunters, which are pretty good.


Japan has laid everything out for this bid. More so than they did with submarines. The lack of non-success has been traumatic for the Japanese. They are feeling super alone and unloved. If this bid fails, they may cease continuing engaging with the international market.

If they get Australia, that will swing the door wide open to them. No doubt the UK/US/CA/NZ will be interest what is happening and may start a wave of equipment sales. I don't think the Japanese really care about having multiple partners. But they really want one good non-US partner. In case Superman re-elects Trump, or worse than Trump candidate, they say things like they are no longer under the nuclear umbrella, and threatens a withdrawal from Asia. A partner like the UK or AU, would be ideal, because these guys can slap the Americans, get their attention, appeal to the population of the US, and influence decision making. Japan, can't.

Even if they don't, Australia has a boat load of resources, huge trade influence with China, China finds Australia impossible to pressure and manipulate and Australia has many friends on the international stage. Japan can supply muscle, ships, tech, etc, Australia provides diplomacy, credibility, leadership.

I can't imagine long and frequent discussions with the Indonesians have made the Japanese more relaxed.


I think we will be aiming to get 2 of the first 4. So perhaps an even bigger ask.

But you have to look at it from Japan's perspective. Russia approaching failed state status and warring with Europe. China just looks immense with all sorts of internal and external issues. The Americans looking less certain about their commitment to Asia in conflict, particularly watching what Ukraine has struggled to get US support with Republicans. Japan essentially doesn't have any non-US allies. 10 years of failed attempts at international defence relations. If the US withdrew from Japan, that would be psychologically and strategically apocalyptic for Japan.

Meanwhile Australia is selling armored vehicles to Germany at NATO meetings, and propping up NATO/US AWACs capability for Ukraine, at personal invitation of the Americans and getting nuclear submarines, from the Americans, maybe the Americans and the British, in some sort of super mega tight big boy club which enjoys unbreakable bipartisan support in all 3 countries, and a former prime minister and China expert in Washington, and they just got mr Wikileaks out. From the Japanese perspective, the deal with Australia must absolutely happen, and they are the most motivated to do so.

While Spain, Germany and Korea have issues and motivation, they aren't in the same situation as Japan.
It's potentially a defining moment in the AUS-JP relationship. Japan's long viewed Australia as a junior partner that you get resources from and have a holiday there. That view has changed considerably in the last few years when it became patently obvious at the level of access Australia has with US tech, it's not insignificant that CEA radar has been allowed to integrate into AEGIS for example and then AUKUS happened.
As you've said Japan wants a reliable partner that it can trust and develop with. We've already seen tech partnerships announced and embarking on a huge shipbuilding collaboration would be the step forward needed. Australia needs a country like Japan to commercialise and manufacture it's research, and Japan's 100% interested in that research too. Japan will need to learn how to collaborate better though as sharing is not something it's done well in the past.
As others have stated Australia needs to start looking closer to home for naval solutions and Japan definitely has a lot to offer.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
... With a SFA with Japan, the RAN can start posting people to terrible unexciting places like Tokyo, to learn and observe the building of the new class of ships, in a new exciting arrangement with Japan, doing some sea time with the Japanese navy. Retention bonuses are nice, but ultimately, paying money to people to sit at a desk they don't want to sit at, doesn't fix the core reason why people leave if there is nothing to do. ...
While I agree in general with your post, I'm not sure anyone would be sent to Tokyo to observe warships being built for the RAN. The Mogami-class, for example, is being built mostly in Nagasaki, like the Asahi & Akizuki classes.
 
Top