Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
FormerDirtDart said:
I don't believe that is correct.
JP2070 was not established until 1998. The system was still in development in 1999
IOC wasn't achieved until 2012, FOC 2013

Audit summary

web.archive.org web.archive.org
Click to expand...
IIRC Australia acquired MU-90 well before development was completed, which was one of the complaints about the programme. It has been awhile since I looked at it, but from memory, when Australia selected the MU-90 it was under the false impression that MU-90 was a largely or perhaps even entirely complete LWT unit, and not one still very much in development.

Unfortunately Australia has had quite a bit of history in selecting various bits of kit, Euro kit in particular, that is still very much in development but apparently Australia had been unaware of just how much more development was required before the kit would be ready.

From my POV sometimes selecting developmental kit cannot be helped, for a variety of reasons, but this can still be perfectly fine if one is aware that development is still underway and a reasonably accurate assessment of just how much further development is required is available. The F-35 (AIR6000) being one such programme, which the RAAF, ADF and Aus gov't were all very much aware that the programme was a developmental one when Australia joined.

Unfortunately it does appear that there have been a number of instances were Australian decision makers appear to have made selections on the belief that the kit being acquired was effectively a MOTS order, when in fact there was still much work to be done before the kit would be ready. Having that kind of disconnect between what is actually ready for entry into service vs. what might need years or even a decade plus can be very problematic. This is particularly applicable if some of the data provided on support and through-life costs are all estimates based upon incomplete development.
 
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Todjaeger said:
IIRC Australia acquired MU-90 well before development was completed, which was one of the complaints about the programme. It has been awhile since I looked at it, but from memory, when Australia selected the MU-90 it was under the false impression that MU-90 was a largely or perhaps even entirely complete LWT unit, and not one still very much in development.

Unfortunately Australia has had quite a bit of history in selecting various bits of kit, Euro kit in particular, that is still very much in development but apparently Australia had been unaware of just how much more development was required before the kit would be ready.

From my POV sometimes selecting developmental kit cannot be helped, for a variety of reasons, but this can still be perfectly fine if one is aware that development is still underway and a reasonably accurate assessment of just how much further development is required is available. The F-35 (AIR6000) being one such programme, which the RAAF, ADF and Aus gov't were all very much aware that the programme was a developmental one when Australia joined.

Unfortunately it does appear that there have been a number of instances were Australian decision makers appear to have made selections on the belief that the kit being acquired was effectively a MOTS order, when in fact there was still much work to be done before the kit would be ready. Having that kind of disconnect between what is actually ready for entry into service vs. what might need years or even a decade plus can be very problematic. This is particularly applicable if some of the data provided on support and through-life costs are all estimates based upon incomplete development.
Click to expand...
The decision coincided with a massive contraction of defence procurement expertise and technical capacity. There was a lot of privatisation and outsourcing with much of the technical appraisal work being seen as unnecessary or an industry role, in the name of efficiency.

At the same time a multitude of 60s and 70s tech was being replaced with bleeding edge capabilities the ADF had little experience with. Procurement processes were also turned on their head, while defence procurement was grouped into the new Defence Materiel Organisation.

Within a decade as many old and bolds as possible were being contracted back in to try and fix things.

Selections that were made during this time were Tiger, MRH, MU-90, Hobart, Armidale, LAND 121, LHDs etc. The only ones that seemed to run smoothly were FMS and some highly risky development projects that were perhaps run more traditionally.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Was involved. As noted, it was a development project, but first deliveries were c. 2002 (had moved on by then). In such cases there is often a long period when the equipment is available and in use but has not reached IOC. Had we suddenly had to use them as for example we used the S-70B-2s in the first Gulf War, some time before they achieved (the then equivalent of) IOC, some at least would have been available, although possible not to the capability first envisaged. In fact, SFAIK they have never been given an air drop capability, hence our subsequent acquisition of Mk 54. I would never hold JP2070 up as a shining light, but it did provide a reasonable capability during Phase 2 and subsequently.

BTW “Acquired” in this sense that I used it means the process of source selection and contract agreement, as well as the construction activity leading to physical delivery. The earlier stages are when the capability that will be delivered is determined, and is the critical bit when assessing that equipment’s suitability and its technical merit - although of course subsequent upgrades are often possible, as was done in 2070.
 
Last edited:
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
We stuck with mu90 on the Hobart's even tho there would have been easier path using the also in inventory mk54.. I presume they have some unique and useful capability or it is being developed.

Mu90 has a very different propulsion setup which may make it very useful for some applications.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
StingrayOZ said:
We stuck with mu90 on the Hobart's even tho there would have been easier path using the also in inventory mk54.. I presume they have some unique and useful capability or it is being developed.

Mu90 has a very different propulsion setup which may make it very useful for some applications.
Click to expand...
I suspect the reason the Hobart-class DDG's were fitted with the MU90 instead of the Mk 54's which were more recent additions to the RAN inventory had to due with the DDG torpedoe magazine being designed for the MU90 and not the Mk 54. The MU90 being electric do not have the same fuel storage concerns that the Mk 54 does which IIRC triggered a need to redesign the helicopter magazine aboard the Hobart-class once Australia selected the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawk & Mk 54 LWT combo as a replacement for the SH-2G(A) Seasprites and the S-70B-2 Seahawks.

Currently it does appear that the Hunter-class frigates are to also be armed with the MU90 for ship-launched use but that could very well change with the FFG's not planned to enter service for nearly a decade. It will be 'interesting' to see what ends up getting fitted and integrated into the SEA 3000 GPF's.

What might be more telling is what (if any) LWT design Australia either orders more of, or establishes production facilities for. It appears that Australia spent some AUD$639 mil. purchasing MU90 torpedoes as well as supporting systems and integrating the LWT into the Adelaide-class FFG and ANZAC-class FFH under JP2070. Not sure (and the ANAO report indicates it is classified) what the actual number of MU90's purchased were. AFAIK no further or additional MU90's have been purchased either.

Meanwhile, back in 2010 Australia ordered some 200 Mk 54 LWT's to armed RAAF P-8A Poseidons, and later the MH-60R 'Romeos'

As far as I have been able to determine, the MU90 LWT has a price tag comparable to that of the Mk 50 LWT, so the per torpedoe cost is (was?) nearly triple for an MU90 vs. Mk 54.

I therefore tend to suspect that, barring a service need for capabilities specific to the MU90 like max speed, engagement depth, or possibly something with the onboard sonar, guidance and acoustic processors, Australia will retire the MU90 once existing stocks get expended or expired.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Correct on the Hobarts. Redesigning for Otto fuel is always interesting.

MU90 does have some different capabilities to Mk 54, but whether that is enough to justify both I can’t say - I’ve been out of the loop way too long.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
spoz said:
Correct on the Hobarts. Redesigning for Otto fuel is always interesting.

MU90 does have some different capabilities to Mk 54, but whether that is enough to justify both I can’t say - I’ve been out of the loop way too long.
Click to expand...
AFAIK the three main differences between the two (in the public domain at least) is that the MU90 can move faster and dive deeper than a Mk 54, whilst also having roughly triple the cost per torp.

The US when it ran into similar issues with the Mk 50 which IMO is likely more directly comparable to the MU90 in terms of capabilities, ended up deciding that the speed and depth performance which required a different fuel and propulsion system from earlier LWT models did not justify such a higher cost. Particularly since the Soviet SSN threat following the end of the Cold War and overall collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact was much reduced, as well as the specific threats from fast and deep diving Soviet SSN's.
 
d-ron84

d-ron84

Member
I did my SVTT Maintainer course in the mid 2000s, we trained for both MK46s and MU90's (the current and future surface launched torpedoes)
From what I was told, the reason we went MU90s was also the reason we went Tigers and Taipans, looking to Europe and moving away from the US due to getting screwed over with Bill & Ben (LPAs)
We then had to get Mk54 due to the fact that their is no air drop version of the MU90, even though we were told it was in development.

*An additional note; due to the MU90 being longer then the Mk46, their noses stuck out of the Mk32 SVTT, and you couldn't put the end covers on, yay sea water and corrosion :)
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Todjaeger said:
AFAIK the three main differences between the two (in the public domain at least) is that the MU90 can move faster and dive deeper than a Mk 54, whilst also having roughly triple the cost per torp.
Click to expand...
That is still pretty good/big reasons to have it. Being battery, it might also be move effective as a drone chassis, or as hard kill capability, or as decoy development. Launching from a ship and launching from an air platform have pretty different needs.

Fair enough no point integrating it on MH60R or P8s, but on the ships with 9LV? Why not. While more expensive to purchase, fuel and maintenance may be cheaper and you may end up with a cheaper, more available weapon for less money. Particularly if we already have them and integrated them.
It may be worth just keeping mu90 around somewhere, to get euro torpedo targeting data. Sitting on the Mu90 and the Mk48 developments is, nice.
www.australiandefence.com.au

Australia joins MU90 In-Service Support program - Australian Defence Magazine

EuroTorp and Europe’s Organisation for Joint Armaments Cooperation (OCCAR) inked a deal in late February covering in-service support for the MU90 Impact Lightweight Torpedo. The deal was also signific...
www.australiandefence.com.au www.australiandefence.com.au

Of all the problems we have, I'm not sure this is the biggest. I predict the MU90 will continue serving on RAN platforms its is currently already on.
 
Underway

Underway

Active Member
StingrayOZ said:
We stuck with mu90 on the Hobart's even tho there would have been easier path using the also in inventory mk54.. I presume they have some unique and useful capability or it is being developed.

Mu90 has a very different propulsion setup which may make it very useful for some applications.
Click to expand...
I would not be surprised if one did a timeline analysis of the project you would find something like the following. At the time of the ship design and competition, the Eurotorp was much better than the Mk 42. Mk 54 wasn't really prime time yet when the decision was likely made. Given the time lag on the project it was probably cheaper to just keep going with the Eurotorp then change anything. Its a very good torp.

The fact Australia has stuck with the Eurotorp likely means it has better performance in X number of categories (shallow water perhaps) or the juice isn't worth the squeeze to switch. Maybe during the Hobarts midlife they will look at a system that is torpedo agnostic and will shoot whatever you put in it. Canada bought such a system for the Rivers.
 
S

Stampede

Well-Known Member
Any update re our two supply ships as to when they will be back in service.
Cannot see much in a search
I think it was hopefully this year but that’s a bit vague
Can certainly see the need for a third supply / logistics ship regardless of the current situation.

If it’s a long term issue what should we do to maintain a supply capability in our region beyond relying on our friends across the Tasman

Cheers S
 
D

devo99

Well-Known Member
Stampede said:
Any update re our two supply ships as to when they will be back in service.
Cannot see much in a search
I think it was hopefully this year but that’s a bit vague
Can certainly see the need for a third supply / logistics ship regardless of the current situation.

If it’s a long term issue what should we do to maintain a supply capability in our region beyond relying on our friends across the Tasman

Cheers S
Click to expand...
Saw HMAS Supply in the dry dock yesterday while going past on the ferry so that suggests some movement is happening on this side of the country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top