Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[hauritz]

A link to an article on the FFG(x) – particular attention to comments on the F100

Navy’s Frigate Competition: Handicapping the Finalists | National Review

Of the five candidates, I agree that the FREMM and F-100 designs should be considered the frontrunners.

Since Australia will be making the decision first I don't think this will influence our choice ... but it could play a role in the US decision. I imagine that if Australia were to opt for the FREMM or the F-5000 it would be an almost perfect fit for US requirements. The basic design would probably not even really need to be greatly changed to meet US requirements.

It could be a foot in the door for Australia to sell systems like CEAFAR to the US navy.

 

[DaveS124]

Any opinion on why the decision wasnt taken today?

These decisions are made by Cabinet, not committees.

The decision will be made when it's made, and that's that.

That NSC reference comes from a typically fact-free article by Nick Stuart. Just ignore everything he says and you'll be, by default , better informed.

 

[Meriv90]

Thanks Jack Wyatthttps://www.defencetalk.com/military/members/jack-wyatt.42834/

Has anyone else found price estimates on the CSC/FFG(X)/SEA 5000?

To confirm the prices quoted in the article linked by Jack.

Navy’s Frigate Competition: Handicapping the Finalists | National Review

The estimated cost of the F-100 frigate comes in at approximately $1.2 billion

But the fact that these two designs made it through the first elimination race suggests that FREMM and the F-100 met the Navy’s survivability standards. What is clear, based upon its established track record, is that Fincantieri’s FREMM will be able to offer a reliable and highly advanced ship, equipped to perform local air defense, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare missions as well as convoy escort, for around $800 million per ship.

Is National Review a good source? Because by checking on Wikipedia they go with Obama cospiracies and climate change denying by quoting the Daily Mail

 

[Todjaeger]

Is National Review a good source? Because by checking on Wikipedia they go with Obama cospiracies and climate change denying by quoting the Daily Mail

I tend to ignore it due to the degree of political bias in it. Here is a link which rates media bias for the National Review. It is not as bad as some, since it does tend to source stories well and be mostly factual, but still.

OTOH the National Interest which tends to have a little less bias IMO is not worth reading (at least about military/defence matters) due to how frequently basic facts are either incorrect, or out of context.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It could be a foot in the door for Australia to sell systems like turn key CEAFAR to the US navy.

I think CEAFAR might be a hard sell to the US, I think that moment has come and gone, but there are other things that might be included. There seems to be interest in the Aegis/9LV combo (i know that is weird), I hear Japan is thinking the same thing and with CEC as well. Others might be interested in CEAFAR. Poland seemed interested for example.

 

[Pusser01]

Correct

My apologies Assail, I hadn't seen the thumbnails of the new mast in the shed.

 

[Jack Wyatt]

This is a UK perspective on SEA 5000.

Australian SEA 5000 competition climax- can the Type 26 frigate achieve export success?

This is an interesting comment on that article -


"According to the Australian review of offers the Type 26 is the “highest cost” at the “highest risk” so it has already lost."

 

[CB90]

I think CEAFAR might be a hard sell to the US, I think that moment has come and gone, but there are other things that might be included. There seems to be interest in the Aegis/9LV combo (i know that is weird), I hear Japan is thinking the same thing and with CEC as well. Others might be interested in CEAFAR. Poland seemed interested for example.

CEAFAR is definitely going to be a tough sell. For USN radars, the commonality of AMDR/EASR has pretty solidly cornered that market.
CEA MOUNT on the other hand...is at least a contender. Still a long shot as I'm pretty sure Raytheon is still trying to keep their system alive, but the market is at least open.

AEGIS/9LV seems rather odd choice for Japan, unless they also want the Australia specific items of SEA5000.
9LV is, to my understanding, to provide the interface between AEGIS and Australia specific equipment.
Similar interface layers exist already in ROK, JMSDF, and other foreign AEGIS users...for the ROK and JMSDF, it's to integrate with their own domestically developed systems (launchers, USW systems, etc).

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think the idea is more about collaboration, development and data sharing than box flogging. Sharing environmental, JORN type data, other sensor and data and presenting it, not just tactical targeting data.

At the end of the day profit is less important than capability.

 

[aussienscale]

CEAFAR is definitely going to be a tough sell. For USN radars, the commonality of AMDR/EASR has pretty solidly cornered that market.
CEA MOUNT on the other hand...is at least a contender. Still a long shot as I'm pretty sure Raytheon is still trying to keep their system alive, but the market is at least open.

AEGIS/9LV seems rather odd choice for Japan, unless they also want the Australia specific items of SEA5000.
9LV is, to my understanding, to provide the interface between AEGIS and Australia specific equipment.
Similar interface layers exist already in ROK, JMSDF, and other foreign AEGIS users...for the ROK and JMSDF, it's to integrate with their own domestically developed systems (launchers, USW systems, etc).

Not sure of the current state of play or what it actually involved, but Australia and the US signed a joint agreement to develop the tech in Australia and specifically the tech being developed by CEA in 2005

Cheers

 

[Calculus]

Off the UK Journal Article on Type 26 – comments section


A link to the launch of Sydney –


Global Naval Forces - News and Defence Headlines | Jane's 360


A link to an article on the FFG(x) – particular attention to comments on the F100


Navy’s Frigate Competition: Handicapping the Finalists | National Review


Canadian decision


Design decision on new navy frigates delayed until next year | CBC News

That article on the CSC decision was written in 2017. The decision is still expected this year.

 

[Todjaeger]

Not sure of the current state of play or what it actually involved, but Australia and the US signed a joint agreement to develop the tech in Australia and specifically the tech being developed by CEA in 2005

Cheers

Honestly since USD$15 mil. in funding from the US was made available to CEA to further develop CEAFAR and/or AUSPAR, it has been my opinion that the funding came with some specific strings attached. My suspicion is that the US funding was provided to give the US either additional influence or possibly even a right to veto certain export sales, much like ITARS restrictions that exist and limit what users of US military kit can do with surplus or decommissioned US systems.

From my POV, such influence or control would be less about minimizing or eliminating a potential competitor, but more about limiting the access potential adversaries have to advanced radar systems.

 

[CB90]

I think the idea is more about collaboration, development and data sharing than box flogging. Sharing environmental, JORN type data, other sensor and data and presenting it, not just tactical targeting data.

I think you're misunderstanding me.
All I'm saying is that the CMS configuration is going to be built and tested for a single certified configuration. In this case, the hybrid CMS appears to be what is hoped to be an elegant solution to what would otherwise be a very onerous integration process, either new radar/illuminators to weapon system or vice versa.
So for Japan, if they were interested in the AEGIS/9LV hybrid, it would only really be advantageous if they were choosing to also buy the weapons and radar combo that went with it.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but there is always quite a bit of parochialism in preserving capabilities that reside in house, and Japan fields both their own domestic shipboard CMS and radars.

At the end of the day profit is less important than capability.

Agreed...but profits are also tied to politics, which is an unfortunate reality that must be accounted in any acquisition.

Not sure of the current state of play or what it actually involved, but Australia and the US signed a joint agreement to develop the tech in Australia and specifically the tech being developed by CEA in 2005

Cheers

My guess is it was primarily a S&T/R&D joint effort to co-develop the foundational technologies for newer generations of AESA. The basic science or engineering proof of concept stuff that isn't necessarily specific to any individual requirement. Just a guess based on timing.
The DBR program also started around the same time in the US, and AMDR/EASR are really just extensions of that development.

But CEA Mount is way ahead in fielding compared to anything the US has, as it has actually been used in successful intercepts.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I think you're misunderstanding me.
All I'm saying is that the CMS configuration is going to be built and tested for a single certified configuration. In this case, the hybrid CMS appears to be what is hoped to be an elegant solution to what would otherwise be a very onerous integration process, either new radar/illuminators to weapon system or vice versa.
So for Japan, if they were interested in the AEGIS/9LV hybrid, it would only really be advantageous if they were choosing to also buy the weapons and radar combo that went with it.
Not saying it couldn't happen, but there is always quite a bit of parochialism in preserving capabilities that reside in house, and Japan fields both their own domestic shipboard CMS and radars.

I probably should be clearer. I don't think 9lv will feature on Japanese ships. But I think there could be some joint collaboration on integration of sensors and systems to ensure the localisations and externally integrated aspects aren't left behind in the future direction of networked warfare and can achieve the same outcomes. It is entirely possible the two forces will fight together, so coherency on things outside of the US stuff still happens.

I do think it is interesting that Australia is going the Aegis/9lv route. And about rolling that back onto the AWD's.

Too much to cover here, so I posted thoughts on my recently established blog.
Sea5000: A tale of two combat systems

 

[spoz]

Rolled back into the DDGs (AWD is now passe) - probably because the DDGs have a bespoke system developed by Kongsberg which would seem to do the same job, and there is no good reason to pay the through life costs inherent in two when you have the probable opportunity to rationalise to one.

 

[ASSAIL]

I probably should be clearer. I don't think 9lv will feature on Japanese ships. But I think there could be some joint collaboration on integration of sensors and systems to ensure the localisations and externally integrated aspects aren't left behind in the future direction of networked warfare and can achieve the same outcomes. It is entirely possible the two forces will fight together, so coherency on things outside of the US stuff still happens.

I do think it is interesting that Australia is going the Aegis/9lv route. And about rolling that back onto the AWD's.

Too much to cover here, so I posted thoughts on my recently established blog.
Sea5000: A tale of two combat systems

I think the very last sentence of your blog contribution (connectivity)is the crux regarding which ship will prevail for SEA 5000
T26 may well be the best ASW platform as good as if not better than FREMM but the difference between them and F5000 makes very little difference to the ASW battle space in a fully connected world. OTOH the advantages offered by Navantia, probably cost and most certainly commonality, should be enough to convince Cabinet.

 

[CB90]

I probably should be clearer. I don't think 9lv will feature on Japanese ships. But I think there could be some joint collaboration on integration of sensors and systems to ensure the localisations and externally integrated aspects aren't left behind in the future direction of networked warfare and can achieve the same outcomes. It is entirely possible the two forces will fight together, so coherency on things outside of the US stuff still happens.

Still not sure what you mean specifically. Not saying collaboration on integration isn't good...just that the specific desired endstate from "localisations and externally integrated aspects" is a bit unclear.

Interoperability of allied forces comes from being able to communicate and exchange data/information. Setting aside the TTP's and focusing on the technical aspects, for the most part, we're probably already there.
Between all the Allied exercises in the Pacific theater, I would expect any technical interop issues to have already come to light. We've done joint US, Japan, and ROK exercises where all 3 nations were up in the same Link network to support a BMD firing event. Same in Europe with most recently a non-AEGIS NATO ship using a Thales radar which successfully passed to a USN AEGIS ship.
A CMS doesn't particularly care whose network control box is talking to it...if the "magic Link box" tells it that Link box from Unit #4 in the network list is reporting Track #12345, the CMS is going to process it.

In other words, across navies at least, Allied interoperability is actually already pretty good.
As long as everybody is using the same LINK/IFF standards (which is why those LINK 11/16/higher standards exist), you should be OK...and all the major Pacific partners for any Coalition are already probably on board with the existing legacy Links at least.

Same goes for any other "secret squirrel" data sources. This is where I really can't say anything specific, but the overall concept is the same. The interoperability resides in the subsystem that will actually talk to the other players in whatever network you want. If I can enter in a partnership to share data and successfully establish this network, then using the data at the unit level is just an internal problem in how your CMS of choice will receive and process the new data source.

CEC is a different story, because it wasn't build with the requirement for Allied interoperability...which is why it's a rather big deal that Australia received it, while no other AEGIS customer has even been approved for sale to date.

I do think it is interesting that Australia is going the Aegis/9lv route. And about rolling that back onto the AWD's.

Gotta agree with spoz on this one regarding the roll back to AWD's.
For initial design on SEA 5000 it's an interesting solution to what was going to be a challenging problem, and probably the most elegant given the advances in flexibility of modern CMS. Open architecture and virtualization, in theory, make integration between interfaces much easier, so it was probably the most cost-effective option to provide this capability.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am thinking more along the lines of say over the horizon type data being widely accessible to Japanese and Australian (and say American forces). Which really is a different category of data, not suitable for tactical solutions but could be useful to cue sensors and assess of weapons and units or to affect position given information or situational awareness. So I guess using it in a semi tactical way but in a very different way to sat data.

Or say Tigers. Which can't share data with anything except other Tigers and could be embarked on the LHD.

Tiger—Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter | Australian National Audit Office

I know some of this stuff has already got solutions, and in the future of course we would never acquire something with these problems. But development of new sensors and platforms will continue.

I think the key thing is to be able to operate either without the US or lead lesser US units in operations.

 

[CB90]

I am thinking more along the lines of say over the horizon type data being widely accessible to Japanese and Australian (and say American forces). Which really is a different category of data, not suitable for tactical solutions but could be useful to cue sensors and assess of weapons and units or to affect position given information or situational awareness. So I guess using it in a semi tactical way but in a very different way to sat data.

Sure, that's what I meant by "secret squirrel" sources (e.g. intelligence sources or higher classification sources). Data is data, you just pick the transmission path that meets the requirement.
While this is an oversimplification, it's mostly true.

Or say Tigers. Which can't share data with anything except other Tigers and could be embarked on the LHD.

Tiger—Army's Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter | Australian National Audit Office

I know some of this stuff has already got solutions, and in the future of course we would never acquire something with these problems. But development of new sensors and platforms will continue.

It may seem like something embarrassing, but this is something nearly every nation developing a net-centric force probably has had issues with, and ground forces have historically always lagged air and naval forces in network maturity. It's really only pretty recently that they've been able to fit the hardware necessary to enter into Joint networks at a wide scale (e.g. Blue Force Tracker on every HMMWV during OIF). Granted, not being able to talk to the greater Army network is pretty bad, but at the same time, ground force networks were really only starting to enter widespread use at about the same time.

And US Apaches couldn't directly link with USAF/USN fixed wing or warships until very recently either.

I think the key thing is to be able to operate either without the US or lead lesser US units in operations.

I am pretty sure the ADF can already fully exercise both, at least between the RAAF and RAN.

Wedgetail plays in major US exercises leading Allied forces as a command and control node, and AWD should be able to do the same.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I am pretty sure the ADF can already fully exercise both, at least between the RAAF and RAN.

Wedgetail plays in major US exercises leading Allied forces as a command and control node, and AWD should be able to do the same.

Still a bit different acting as a node in Syria or say East Timor compared to a potential higher end and much more contested space with a tech peer with superior numbers. Wedgetail has only recently been capable of that, and I believe the CEC capability it yet to be fitted (the DDG's were first?).

Australia has additional pressures, as it is much more likely to have "fish out of water" situations, as we don't have mirrored capacity in each of the services. So while the US may not worry too much about Apache/USN compatibility, for Australia Army and Navy assets will always work together, the level of integration we need is higher than USMarines and USN. The level of integration with allies is also likely to be higher as well. The level of intergration has to be high, out of the box. New acquisitions are useless unless they are integrated.

However, it also seems like Australia is making this a significant focus. CEC, Aegis across the fleet, 9LV, US Marines deployed on Australian ships, etc.

I assume the radar AUSFAR is integrated into Aegis itself?

Makes me wonder how much space are on FREMM or Type 26 to incorporate all these systems and space for things command and control. I find the ASPI analysis interesting because they write off the ability of the ship launched torpedos because the range is too short. I thought Mu90 were the longest ranged lw torpedoes, and something like ASROC or MILAS would help level things up in that regard.