Or he doesnt know. I’ve never seen any articles anywhere stating Harpoon had a 200km range.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Yes, agree with the anti air shortfall. Don't forget NSM has a land strike capability (albeit much more limited range than a Tomahawk), so the Kongsberg factory does assist with this. Eventual PrSM production would I suggest be the land strike main stay for Australia. The work with Lockheed Martin in this area seems promising, starting with GMLRS assembly next year.
The GWEO weapons partner that we are yet to see a plan from is Raytheon. Their road has been bumpy, culminating in a sudden management cleanout (citing tensions with the government) last May. It's been quiet since then.
They however are the ESSM, SM2/6 and AIM120/9x producer, so their eventual strategy for Australian production will be critical for anti air protection. Hopefully we will hear soon.
ESSM is in my view most important as it is the cheapest, easiest for bulk production and has the largest onship magazine capacity. It also has a stablemate in the AMRAAM ER (uses the back end of the ESSM), which is a capable range extender for NASAMS.
Matched with an SM2/6 line, we would be very self sufficient for Naval and land anti air manufacturing.
I am sure the air force would also like the AIM 9 and 120 series in production.
I should note that all of the above missiles are all close family relatives. They interchange sensors and rockets frequently. If you have a factory and supply chain for one, then you have an option for them all.
Last edited:
Chief of Navy mentioned Tomahawks would be deployed before years end, in his presser after the NSM launch, so Conroy didn’t let anything slip there…
The range with these weapons is always flight profile dependant, which a lot of people misunderstand. Harpoon’s range IS 130k, in a lo-lo-lo flight profile with tactical routing employed. Same with NSM and it’s “185k” range.
But have the weapon climb to altitude in a different flight profile and the range is different…
Why on earth is the apparent majority of the Australians onboard Army or Air Force; this is a frigate in contention for the RAN so why isn’t every available place taken up by Navy people, who might actually gain some benefit for the future - and why on earth did they need to have a gender, equity and security adviser there? This is jointery taken much too far! I am sure the Army and AF people had a lovely sea ride - but really!
Navy has already had a thorough tour of FFM 6, JS Agano.
Kind of hints at why we saw the sudden cancellation of the programs to replace our MCM an Hydro fleets. It isn't the only show in town. In fact there seem to be several Australian start ups looking at producing an array UUVs and LUUVs.
C2 Robotics receives further Defence funding for Speartooth LUUV - Australian Defence Magazine
C2 Robotics is in the process of completing production of improved Generation 2 versions of the Speartooth Large Uncrewed Underwater Vessel.
www.australiandefence.com.au
Trusted Autonomous Systems unveils RAN-funded SeaWolf project at IndoPac
Trusted Autonomous Systems publicly unveiled their SeaWolf project this week, a 12 meter autonomous underwater vessel developed in concert with Cellula Robotics for the Royal Australian Navy. The pr
Aardvark144
Active Member
So are you saying that any IE activities involving Japanese/Korean naval units during IPE24 can only involve RAN personnel?
No of course not. However sea riding has the potential to build up knowledge amongst the future practitioners of how a platform is operated; and it is, quite frankly, a waste of an opportunity to give those places (which will be limited) to people who will not be involved in the operation or support of the vessels, should we buy them. And the more experienced people who have been given that opportunity the better; so that the fact that one group of Navy people has been onboard another ship of the class does not mean that you should not try to get as many more onboard as you possibly can.
RAN is actively poaching RAAF and army . "Hey guys, we are getting all the cool new kit, come join us".
To be honest, I'm a little dark on who gets sea rides and other things and why. I've worked multiple projects, multiple capabilities but haven't had a ride in anything adf since I wore a uniform in the 90s.
Same applies to many of my technical colleagues, while admin, contracts and PMs seem to get all the jollies and benefits.
100pa seems low bar tbh when you start doing the numbers on how many the ADF will potentially deploy + stockpile and then the prospect of supplying Asian customers.
First set of ShipAlt drawings for Sea 4000 Phase 6 have been completed. Last set to be delivered by Q1 next year.
www.australiandefence.com.au
Navantia Australia completes first set of Ship Alteration drawings - Australian Defence Magazine
Navantia Australia has completed the first set of Ship Alteration drawings (ShipAlt) for the Hobart class Guided Missile Destroyer Capability Upgrade program - Project Sea 4000 Phase 6.
www.australiandefence.com.au
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Its highly integrated, so we would definitely be pretty locked in to the systems they have for the next 10-15 years. Probably the radar too.
It may be possible to put a few panels or something elsewhere on the ship. Small/tiny additional CEAmount or CEAfar stuff. It may be possible to integrate 9LV, either as a sub system (like on hunter with AEgis and 9lv), or as a primary. As long as there is room, power, in a server cabinet somewhere. This would probably give Australia what it wants, without launching a new mega program to Australianise the original parent design. Mogami has pretty good radar and new systems. But 9LV and CEA can do special things we are interested in going forward. These wouldn't be used as really as combat radars, but the other things we do. 9LV can also then use our sensors and wacky weapons today, without launch integration into the Japanese combat system
Ideally, the nations would partner up and then develop an integrated solution for future ships, adding those integrated capabilities to the other fleet. Both would benefit. Maybe CEA sells or licences some stuff, which would be good.
The koreans are less tightly integrated, but still similar issues. We probably need a better development model for this kind of stuff going forward. Learn some lessons from hunter about that. On hunter I think its justified because these are major tier 1 units. But that impacts schedule, cost etc.
It may be possible to put a few panels or something elsewhere on the ship. Small/tiny additional CEAmount or CEAfar stuff. It may be possible to integrate 9LV, either as a sub system (like on hunter with AEgis and 9lv), or as a primary. As long as there is room, power, in a server cabinet somewhere. This would probably give Australia what it wants, without launching a new mega program to Australianise the original parent design. Mogami has pretty good radar and new systems. But 9LV and CEA can do special things we are interested in going forward. These wouldn't be used as really as combat radars, but the other things we do. 9LV can also then use our sensors and wacky weapons today, without launch integration into the Japanese combat system
Ideally, the nations would partner up and then develop an integrated solution for future ships, adding those integrated capabilities to the other fleet. Both would benefit. Maybe CEA sells or licences some stuff, which would be good.
The koreans are less tightly integrated, but still similar issues. We probably need a better development model for this kind of stuff going forward. Learn some lessons from hunter about that. On hunter I think its justified because these are major tier 1 units. But that impacts schedule, cost etc.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
In a previous post on this thread, I mentioned that the existing Mogami radar is X band which is suitable for short to medium range and it doesn’t have any long range search capability. Models & drawings of the upgraded version indicate that a different radar configuration will be fitted which will hopefully fix this shortcoming.
Maybe under JAUKUS, should Japan ever join the technology alliance?
"Upgraded Mogami" Is The New "New FFM", Looking At Australia
Japanese builder MHI redesignates the Mogami FFG successor as "Upgraded Mogami", seemingly positioning the design for Australian contract.
www.navalnews.com
Seems to indicate that people are at least looking at this, in some sort of design capacity.
I don't think either the Japanese nor the Koreans want to foist on Australia anything that Australia isn't happy with. However, both classes, are built in reasonable volume overseas, and in some cases, the RAN may want to adopt some of these different systems.
Long range also makes a lot of sense, Mogami was originally going to be a light short range ship, almost LCS like, because that is what the Japanese envisaged and were sort of replacing. The design has grown into a much more generic light frigate capability.
From the story @Going Boeing boeing linked earlier:
So yeh, put that together with Ghost shark, and other similar platforms, seems like a real reason to have them, not just "cheap up gunned OPV ships". These seem like well place for the future. With a supporting partner nation, building a large fleet, and looking at similar enabling capabilities, jointly developed with Australia.
Well I think Japan is already there. They have plenty of defence agreements and defence projects with the US, UK and hopefully AU. Korea's Austal move was interesting, because the Americans poo-poo that on security grounds. Which is vauge. Im not sure Japan will have exactly the same issues, they have existing very tight programs with the US like SM-3 etc.
In the future can I see the US being interested in Mogami flight II? Sure. Can I see the US and Australia being interested in the Japanese-UK 6th gen fighter, sure.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I am much less certain of the potential depth of the US-Japan defence/tech sharing agreements and do not think Japan has anything really comparable to AUKUS, nor do I think Japan would be invited to that particular party. One needs to remember that Japan is not a part of the Five Eyes intel sharing, and for that matter, as much as the US does with S. Korea in terms of defence, S. Korea is not a part of Five Eyes either. This strongly suggests to me that there are at least some reservations on info/tech sharing with Japan and S. Korea.
Both Japan and Korean aren't in the same strategic situation as the UK or AU. There aren't the cultural links. There isn't the same mindset and world view as AU and UK which really put them in the category different to other allies, for good and bad. They all have significant influence with each other. I don't even see Canada or NZ or anyone else really fitting into that category. AUKUS isn't NATO or five eyes. AUKUS isn't a defence pact. AUKUS technologies, at least some, probably aren't for everyone, they are just for AUKUS partners. But AUKUS does provide a frame work for deep collaboration. What will probably come out is a new technology sharing framework.
Japan does have standing forces agreements with the US, AU, and UK. So joint projects can be conducted today, training, deployment, etc. Korea isn't there yet. Korea also has a different view on China than does Japan. A korean company tried to buy Austal, the Japanese didn't even try. I think japan is interested in engaging with AUKUS, not be a part of AUKUS. It provides an umbrella for Japan to diversify its alliances, be less US centred, but in a way that the US is totally cool with, with two very different, but very special allies.
With the alliances, there is interest in pooling talent and not reinventing the wheel. Japan can certainly be a part of that.
Australia, Japan, US agree to missile pact against ‘rising threats’
The three countries have agreed to co-operate on a networked air defence architecture to counter China’s aggression in the Pacific.
Getting back to the Navy, I think both Korean and Japan have very compelling offerings, with capabilities in many formative domains, that could impact all services.
The Koreans already have a project in Australia with Army. Japan is clearly looking for the right project with Australia, and that may be Navy.
But also aspects of ships goes beyond just VLS and endurance and crew numbers. From what I hear the Mogami class is pretty much a rolling tech demonstrator and implementer for a lot of new concepts.