Indeed.
Some people posting here seem to have a rather optimistic view of what "second tier" means.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
Some people posting here seem to have a rather optimistic view of what "second tier" means.
If we do go with Japan, might we be interested in the new replenishment ships set to replace the old towada class?
Build begins 2025 for 2028 delivery to JMSDF. 1 ordered, possibly up to 3 planned.
www.navalnews.com
Build begins 2025 for 2028 delivery to JMSDF. 1 ordered, possibly up to 3 planned.
Japan requests largest defense budget ever - Naval News
The Japanese MoD on August 31 requested $52.9 billion (7.7 trillion yen) for fiscal year 2024, its largest ever defense budget request.
www.navalnews.com
Attachments
I don't follow the Japanese navy closely. Do they have less mechanical breakdown issues than we do? I don't ever remember reading articles from Japan abut any ship needing to be sidelined. IF they are better, then Reptilia's suggestion sounds goodIf we do go with Japan, might we be interested in the new replenishment ships set to replace the old towada class?
Build begins 2025 for 2028 delivery to JMSDF. 1 ordered, possibly up to 3 planned.
Japan requests largest defense budget ever - Naval News
The Japanese MoD on August 31 requested $52.9 billion (7.7 trillion yen) for fiscal year 2024, its largest ever defense budget request.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
I have basic radar knowledge but, from what’s available in the public domain, it appears that the Mogami radar operates in the X band and thus is optimised for short to medium range detection with no long range capability.
It’s disappointing that the Government is insisting on keeping the purchase to existing equipment fit as if they installed the configuration that’s on the Anzacs, the ship would have significantly better surveillance capability.
It’s disappointing that the Government is insisting on keeping the purchase to existing equipment fit as if they installed the configuration that’s on the Anzacs, the ship would have significantly better surveillance capability.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Something to keep in mind is that deeming something as being 'better' really needs to be defined. JMSDF vessels might (I have no real idea one way or the other) suffer mechanical breakdowns less frequently than RAN vessels, but one would need to also examine who JMSDF vessels get utilized vs. how the RAN operates MFU's. I myself have been under the impression that RAN vessels are often on fairly long transits as well as prolonged deployments away from Australia proper, whilst JMSDF vessels seem to operate more around Japan and the surrounding seas.
If that is an accurate understanding, then it would make sense if Japanese vessels suffer mechanical issues less frequently, simply because they should have easier/more rapid access to maintenance facilities to address minor issues, before they can become major issues.
AND
In terms of disappointment, sort of yes and sort of no. By keeping the purchase (and seems currently planned, though until the contracts are actually signed things could change...) it might speed the acquisition process along, though down the track cause problems with additional/new kit which needs to be purchased and brought into RAN service, as well as the kit itself perhaps not as effective as some already in RAN use. However, if RAN specified kit was to be fitted instead, that would likely force some element of redesign work to ensure that the kit can be fitted where needed, as well as the appropriate power, cabling, cooling, etc. can all be fitted and integrated.
If the kit were to be changed, it would likely trigger a detailed design phase to make sure that the desired changes could be accommodated and this phase could take anywhere from a few months to a year or more before the build could start. IMO the announced timeline plan seems rather optimistic as is, but if selection it to be done sometime in 2025 and first steel cut on the overseas build in 2026, changing the fitout to have RAN kit would effectively scuttle that. Design selection might happen in 2025, but it would be quite unlikely that first overseas steel could still be cut in 2026, since the changed detailed designs would likely only get completed in 2026.
Also, if the design were to be changed, it is quite possible that some of the cost, speed and quality advantages available to an overseas build from a hot production line would be lost, because the modified vessels would no longer be quite the same as what the yard and workforce had gotten used to.
The new FFM sits between the Mogami and the future 13DDX and ASEV. It’s supposed to have a more powerful multi function radar given the new design has added AAW capabilities and will ‘cover high tense water area’ whereas the Mogami will ‘cover low tense water area’
Japan Sets Course for New 13DDX Air Defence Destroyer - Naval News
Japan plans to begin design work on a new, high-end air-defence destroyer known as 13DDX in fiscal year 2024 (FY24).
www.navalnews.com
Attachments
Last edited:
If it is deemed necessary, I am sure the people who put CEAFAR in the Anzacs could also do so to the 2nd tier ships at some future date.
More important to get them in the water and operational first.
With the passage of time and advances in tech, it may even be an easier fit.
I know that commonality is great for training and maintainance but different sensors and weapon fits between classes of ship within the RAN was the norm not the exception.
The Adelaides , Perths and Anzacs all had different radar systems.
The Adelaides (a class of only 6 ships) were the only ships equipped with the Mk 13 missile launcher. Yet the RAN coped.
To me it is not who made the sensor or weapon, but can it be intergrated into Saab 9LV.
The rest can be sorted as it has been in the past.
Correction Perths also had the Mk13.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Perth's and Anzac's only co-existed in the RAN for 5 years, Anzac's actually replacing the Perth's. A much better example would have been, Rivers, Perth's and Adelaide's which co-existed for 18 years.
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.
Last edited:
And if you look at it a core part of the Hobart upgrade is get SAAB 9Lv as a combat system interface. SAAB have the local capability to adapt and install their wares on pretty much anything with the required volume.
I hope they do a proper analysis of ships systems, including asking how much and how long to integrate the RANs prefered systems. Ask the questions, then do a cost benefit analysis on it.
On my current project there is a project risk assessment that has made on technical advice. Something didn't sound right so I started digging and realised assessing the technical risk was irrelevant, the true risk was to schedule.
By applying the different filter, it became apparent that, in this particular case, by giving precedence to schedule i.e. project risk, the only possible course of action, completely mitigated the technical risk.
Sometimes (often) by refusing to look at the big picture and unduly focusing on detail without context, the detail gives you the wrong answer. Sometimes the most efficient and timely way to deliver the required result is (i.e. a useful capability in the required timeframe) is to do a more holistic, bottom up assessment, rather than a top down one focusing on cherry picked details.
By applying the different filter, it became apparent that, in this particular case, by giving precedence to schedule i.e. project risk, the only possible course of action, completely mitigated the technical risk.
Sometimes (often) by refusing to look at the big picture and unduly focusing on detail without context, the detail gives you the wrong answer. Sometimes the most efficient and timely way to deliver the required result is (i.e. a useful capability in the required timeframe) is to do a more holistic, bottom up assessment, rather than a top down one focusing on cherry picked details.
Vce Adm Hammond answered this very question at Senate Estimates on June 6…
There appears to be some intention to release news on this process later in 2024. Perhaps a down-select media release, at which point we may get some of the “configuration” answers, people are discussing.
Notice his emphasis on the capability perspective. His people set the capability and regulatory requirements, the latter from a flag state perspective. Shipbuilding Group (or whatever it is called today) which includes the project team and NCB then has to deliver against those requirements. So his people don’t have to deliver, they just have to accept and verify. In other words, the good senator asked the wrong person. He should have asked AS Shipbuilding what changes were going to have to be made.
It was interesting hearing Rear Admiral Tiffens take on it. Fifteen years ago he nailed it on the Hobart's as well. We stitch ourselves up by deciding what we won't do early on, then tie ourselves in knots trying to achieve what we decided not to do would have delivered easily.
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.
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.
Last edited:
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Realistically there is probably no reason why you couldn't refit them with a further CEAFAR derivative radar system and 9LV at their first major refit.
My major concern with using the existing fitout would be whether translating the software UI and Manuals to English would cause a larger delay then just fitting RAN Standard systems from start.
My major concern with using the existing fitout would be whether translating the software UI and Manuals to English would cause a larger delay then just fitting RAN Standard systems from start.
