OldTex
Well-Known Member
No it is more a case of commentators pushing their preference as if it is a foregone conclusion.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0
- Thread starter OPSSG
- Start date
It has been pointed out several times that tacking the 9LV + CEAFAR to the Mogami goes against the grain of the GPF as low risk, off-the-shelf Tier 2 design that could be built rapidly without the complexities that bedeviled the T26/Hunters.
I don't see the need either since interoperability can be achieved via datalinks (e.g Link 16). On the contrary, the Japanese combat systems/radars are sophisticated in their own right and might well offer new insights on how AU combat systems can evolved in the future. Maybe a future MELCO/AU hybrid combat system in the 2030s period.
I don't see the need either since interoperability can be achieved via datalinks (e.g Link 16). On the contrary, the Japanese combat systems/radars are sophisticated in their own right and might well offer new insights on how AU combat systems can evolved in the future. Maybe a future MELCO/AU hybrid combat system in the 2030s period.
I am way out of my area of expertise here, but it does occur to me that while there are tremendous benefits in systems commonality in terms of procurement / training / sustainment I do worry about the cyber risks of having a single combat system or radar. If an adversary finds a weakness in either then they could effectively blind us. It is far less likely that they would be able to do this with both a combat system of Swedish and Japanese origin at the same time given their architecture is presumably fundamentally different.
They also have to be operable by Australians who only speak and read English, not by (in the case of the Mogami) Japanese, some of who presumably only speak Japanese. Or if they have some English, do not have it at the level of proficiency needed to operate either the combat system. Or, more importantly arguably, the platform systems which of course include the damage control and the propulsion systems amongst others which are equally important (you really don’t want to stuff up the operation of the sewerage system).
Does the CMS have to be 9LV? Maybe just use Saab consoles that connect to the Japanese combat system. They could even be built under license. Getting the Japanese to English their consoles isn't a deal breaking issue. Interfacing Non-Japanese weapons into a Japanese combat system, or vice versa, integrating Japanese weapons into a 9lV is not a trivial matter. The Japanese know if they want other people to use their system they will need to provide at least an English version, which is very doable. They could probably achieve that before this tender process closes.
Its more of an issue if we want to use Japanese ships with mixed Japanese Australian crews. But it isn't insurmountable. I would imagine English is widely spoken across the Japanese self defence force officer class. I know the Australian army has about 20 Japanese language experts, I suspect the Navy would have more. The Japanese SDF work very closely with the Americans, so any radio or collaboration interface type role is going to have English capabilities.
But integrating MU90 into the Japanese combat system? Or Mk54? Tens of millions. Perhaps a decade before that capability is realized. Can't we just use the Japanese solution instead?
CEA I think is quite busy with Hunters and AEGIS integration. Adding the Mogami project would literally double their workload. It might be more useful to integrate CEA and Mitsubishi on a joint radar project to upgrade all Mogami class ships. Particularly with some sort of L band and S band capabilities. These can be rolled out to both Australian and Japanese fleets. Shared costs across ~24+ ships. Shared workload across two companies. These are additional capabilities so combat effectiveness isn't compromised currently.
I would imagine the first 3 possibly the first 6 would be built as is spec by Japan with just English language signage and consoles. I imagine at refit they could then be upgraded with a Mitsubishi/CEA S/L band additional capability and perhaps a shadow 9LV combat system capability that works behind the Japanese one to support any Australian specific capabilities. This isn't even new hardware, it could be virtualized on the existing server. Newer ships could be built with the new additional capabilities integrated.
There are a lot of decisions and details. But I don't see them as insurmountable.
No one seems to worry about the Germans speaking English.
The Japanese, much like the Koreans, are very very interested in having some sort of weapons production capability outside of their homeland. If we are happy with some of these Japanese weapon options, its very likely there would be significant support to make stuff here.
If Japan was ever to go to war, they would very much like Australia to be able to continue to supply weapons.
Its more of an issue if we want to use Japanese ships with mixed Japanese Australian crews. But it isn't insurmountable. I would imagine English is widely spoken across the Japanese self defence force officer class. I know the Australian army has about 20 Japanese language experts, I suspect the Navy would have more. The Japanese SDF work very closely with the Americans, so any radio or collaboration interface type role is going to have English capabilities.
But integrating MU90 into the Japanese combat system? Or Mk54? Tens of millions. Perhaps a decade before that capability is realized. Can't we just use the Japanese solution instead?
CEA I think is quite busy with Hunters and AEGIS integration. Adding the Mogami project would literally double their workload. It might be more useful to integrate CEA and Mitsubishi on a joint radar project to upgrade all Mogami class ships. Particularly with some sort of L band and S band capabilities. These can be rolled out to both Australian and Japanese fleets. Shared costs across ~24+ ships. Shared workload across two companies. These are additional capabilities so combat effectiveness isn't compromised currently.
I would imagine the first 3 possibly the first 6 would be built as is spec by Japan with just English language signage and consoles. I imagine at refit they could then be upgraded with a Mitsubishi/CEA S/L band additional capability and perhaps a shadow 9LV combat system capability that works behind the Japanese one to support any Australian specific capabilities. This isn't even new hardware, it could be virtualized on the existing server. Newer ships could be built with the new additional capabilities integrated.
There are a lot of decisions and details. But I don't see them as insurmountable.
No one seems to worry about the Germans speaking English.
The Japanese, much like the Koreans, are very very interested in having some sort of weapons production capability outside of their homeland. If we are happy with some of these Japanese weapon options, its very likely there would be significant support to make stuff here.
If Japan was ever to go to war, they would very much like Australia to be able to continue to supply weapons.
I believe a potential combination for the Mogami-class frigate could be the Evolved Mogami with the Aegis CMS and the CEAFAR radar.
The JSDF has extensive experience with the Aegis system for tier-1 defense, and CEAFAR also has experience the Hunter-class frigates, addressing many potential concerns. While the Aegis CMS may have higher acquisition costs compared to the 9LV system, since it's only the CMS being integrated, the costs might not be excessive.
I’m not too concerned about language barriers, as current Mogami systems seem to use English extensively. Translation might be a tedious process, but it’s manageable.
What I do wonder about is how the ship would adapt for comfort, especially considering cultural and physical differences. Factors like the height of doors, the size of beds, and the design of kitchen and cafeteria equipment could be areas of adaptation.
The JSDF has extensive experience with the Aegis system for tier-1 defense, and CEAFAR also has experience the Hunter-class frigates, addressing many potential concerns. While the Aegis CMS may have higher acquisition costs compared to the 9LV system, since it's only the CMS being integrated, the costs might not be excessive.
I’m not too concerned about language barriers, as current Mogami systems seem to use English extensively. Translation might be a tedious process, but it’s manageable.
What I do wonder about is how the ship would adapt for comfort, especially considering cultural and physical differences. Factors like the height of doors, the size of beds, and the design of kitchen and cafeteria equipment could be areas of adaptation.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
And the number of ships we are talking about is not trivial. 11 Frigates would be the most MFUs of one design Australia has ever operated, each with a crew of between 90 and 120*, this all adds up to a requirement of 2-3000 qualified personnel, as well as substantial trg, log and maintenance streams required. There is enough room for a substantial RAN career without ever setting foot on a Hobart or Hunter.
*Numbers may vary in RAN service.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If (still a big IF at this point) a Japanese offering does end up getting selected for SEA 3000 then yes, Japanese 'solutions' could certainly be utilized, but there would still be training issues involved and significant costs and potentially infrastructure reqs as well.
Take LWT's for instance. The Mogami-class is fitted with Japanese Type 12 LWT's, whilst the ADF current fields the MU90 and Mk 54 LWT's. If the RAN were to start fielding a third type of LWT, then system operators would need to be trained to use the new type of torpedoes as well as having maintainers for the new LWT. A supply of parts to actually sustain maintenance activities would also need to be established for a third type of torp and very importantly, Australia would need to purchase and establish yet another LWT warstock. Also going forward, maintaining logistical support for deployed vessels, particularly for mixed vessel TF's would be of greater difficulty. Depending on the torpedoe characteristics, it might also be necessary and a non-trivial exercise, to redesign parts of the hangar magazine like happened with the Hobart-class DDG's.
Yes, if money and time gets thrown at the issue, it can be overcome. However I get the distinct impression the people are overlooking the costs and complexities involved. This is not something simple like changing from one brand/manufacturer of 9 x 19 mm Para Bellum to another, but more like switching from 9mm to 8 x 22 mm Nambu. Either can make one dead, but they cannot use munitions interchangeably.
A similar situation exists for all the other ship systems which would used as well.
Going Boeing
Well-Known Member
Additionally, CEA is developing the HX77 truck-based CEAOPS systems and the Hawkei based CEATAC systems as the radar solution for NASAMS systems under Land 19 Phase 7B - they have a lot of work to do quickly.
CEA Technologies was established in 1983 by two former Naval Officers with a goal of creating a centre of excellence for the design and support of systems for the Australian Defence Force.
I like the thought of collaboration between CEA & Mitsubishi on the future Mogami radars, it would result in the best of both technologies.
Last edited:
How about this. We abandon the MU90. Use the Mk54 on the MH60 and P8 and the Hobarts. And the Type 12 on everything else (ie the new frigates).
This dramatically cuts down costs, we can look at a domestic Type 12 production capability, we leverage our Mk48 design and database ADCAP capability, we bring the Americans into the project to make a new AU-US-JP light weight torpedo. Moving everyone to a single torpedo. One torpedo, more capability, cheaper, etc. The Japanese have a lot of ships with a lot of Torpedos.
If we do acquire the Mogami platform, I would say MU90 and the Type 12 will have to face off to see which one stays. Perhaps both go and we just stick with the Mk54. No matter the merits of the Mu90 in isolation, the ADF is moving away from chasing that individual selection.
When we do acquire new frigates the Anzacs are leaving the fleet awfully quickly and Australia will be focused on a much larger fleet of new ships. If we are building 11 Mogamis, the Mogami fit out will have huge inertia, and would I imagine displace some existing systems and weapons.
Which is I think part of the big decision on why its down to the Germans and the Japanese. The Australian government is giving Germany, and effectively the entire EU a chance to pitch on a project that may determine many systems for the Australian fleet for a very long time. Its not just about the hull platform, its the whole package, full spectrum of industrial capability.
From the Japanese perspective, if the Americans become unwilling to supply logistical support or weapons, then Australia would become the key supplier. Which makes China's calculations and confidence on predicting the US much harder. If Australia supplies, then the US would likely allow, or lightly also support such a commitment. So key munitions, like torpedoes are going to be very interesting for the Japanese and Australia.
All hypothetical. Australia may not be comfortable or ready for that kind of arrangement.
No sorry, That is just what happens when I type a comment while thinking about a specific thing. In general, I would expect the first GPF (whoever wins) to provide the first 3 with their current radar suite (Among other things) but wouldn't be surprised to see them incorporate CEAFAR and 9LV in later batches.
Personally, I think its preferable to have a wide range of supply avenues, for example, Japan/US/Europe as potential suppliers, as long as you are using them in enough quantity to ensure economies of scale.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
It is my understanding that the MU90 LWT's fielded by the RAN are currently fitted aboard the ANZAC-class frigates and the Hobart-class destroyers and that as a result of their propulsion/power systems, do not have the same safe ordnance storage reqs as the Mk 54 LWT's. Yes, the Hobart-class DDG's could get the LWT's changed to something else, but again that could very well require modifications to the ship like the magazine storage and munitions handling systems, as well as whatever changes would need to be made to interface a new/different LWT to the ship's CMS and shipboard electronics. Again, this could all possibly be done but would require time, funding and resources. Given that the RAN only has three DDG's in service, the time required for such modifications, particularly if the vessels themselves just underwent upgrades could be problematic IMO, since it would mean reduced numbers available for ops for an even longer period.
Making the situation potentially even worse is that AFAIK the upcoming Hunter-class FFG's (per this RAN page here) are also to be fitted with ship-launched MU-90 LWT's, so we are then talking about potentially even more redesign for the new frigates as well as integration with the new class's CMS.
Again, nothing insurmountable but it will all take more time, have increased costs and programme risks, as well as delay the number of vessels available to the RAN for service.
Where we start to really step into the unknown is where/how MHI's Type 12 LWT compares to the MU-90 and Mk 54 LWT's, particularly with regards to unit cost and storage/handling systems. Are they more like the MU-90 or the Mk 54, or perhaps something else entirely different? As I understand it, the MU-90's propulsion system is capable of higher speeds and operating at deeper depths than the Mk 54 by using a more exotic fuel system. However, there is the significant downside in that a MU-90 LWT costs nearly triple that of a Mk 54.
I do think it would be wise for Australia to set a long-term goal of rationalizing the LWT design in use, but that would likely take over a decade to implement, and that is assuming a new LWT does not get introduced into the fleet.
Well see here is a thing. Japanese defence tech is mostly based off US concepts and designs. Most of the time that works out fine.
But this is a case where Japan now has a defence partner who operates a very interesting munition type they may want to have. Australia also has pretty extensive experience with UUV that could translate to torpedo's, and also has torpedo development experience. There is an opportunity there.
Maybe they just license the MU90. The Japanese could do that. NSM for an example.
Japan certainly has a need for near ship defence and near ship offense, similar to Australia. The situation is changing, its not just submarines its also UUVs, or dismounted systems. The MU90 is probably a better development platform for future emerging threats.
The MU90 problem is that not many operate it. Particularly our neighbors.
The Mk54 isn't going anywhere because the costs for integrating something different on the very few MH60's and P8's we operate isn't worth any improved performance.
Not only that, P8's and MH60s may not really be suited for the kind of sensor work that allows a firing of a munition like the MU90 that has specific advantages in say depth. Speed is also less relevant because the helicopter and jet are much faster anyway. Having Mh60 and particularly the P8 being able to fire globally available mk54 is also advantageous. Australia can deploy a P8 to any American base anywhere in the world and start dropping Mk54s. The British keep threatening that Stingray would be effective and integrated into the P8s... Could be another option.
But we shouldn't just consider the weapons in isolation.
Which also brings up where are we likely to operate these new Frigates. Are we operating them in Europe or Asia? I could totally see a regular rotation of the light general purpose Frigate to Asia, specifically Japan. So being able to fire munitions the Japanese operate is also likely part of the deal. Which is possibly another reason there will be huge pressure not to select different stuff to what ever the parent design is operating. Which may also shift things, if we are operating from Japan, then the threat and requirements are different to operating off the coast of Australia.
If we can keep the Chinese forces tied up to a cat and mouse game 6000km away from the Australian coast, with two very strong allies in lock step, then that would seem to be a reasonably good strategy for Australia. We will hopefully have the strategic space to move in and out of theatre, but still strongly support our allies and our major/second largest trading partner and the wide Asia pacific region. Our ships would be regularly moving in and out through the rest of SEA and the south Pacific.
We may have something like 1-3 general purpose frigates on permanent rotation in Japan. Along with a P8 and a E7 (maybe fighters and refuellers) and perhaps a Hobart class. While not an outrageous amount of firepower, it would mean that Australia sits at the Big Table when it comes to world affairs and China. Japan would be very happy to have a country with the level of influence with the US like Australia, and with our CEC capabilities. It would be a solid commitment that China would have to factor in, even if the US political leadership became erratic.
In terms of a very interesting munition type, Japan is currently under development Anti-torpedo torpedo function in addition to type 12 LWT that could potentially interest RAN to join the development or acquisition, but it may not necessarily use on type 12, probably to MU90 as well.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I tend to have a different view of the MU-90, seeing it as more of a innovative but ultimately dead end weapon. Much like the US Mk 50 LWT and for essentially similar reasons IMO. The design for the MU-90 had it's genesis in LWT development programmes that France and Italy were running to replace their existing LWT's with a newer, more capable design which could be effective against fast, deep-diving Soviet SSN's during the Cold War. Unfortunately, by the time the design really entered service (RAN IOC was 2012 IIRC, ~14 years the Australian replacement programme launched) the perceived threat of fast, deep-diving SSN's had diminished significantly to the point where the extra costs associated with the fuel and propulsion system needed for a LWT to be effective at depth was no longer justified. As mentioned previously, the approximate costs of a MU-90, was roughly triple that of the Mk 54 LWT.
Now the Mk 54 was itself developed for the USN because the new Mk 50 LWT was an effective LWT, it was also expensive (~USD$2.9 mil.) and deemed overly expensive for the perceived diminished threat posed by Soviet/Russian SSN's like the Alfa-class. To reduce costs, the US launched a new LWT programme which sought to take advantage of the seeker improvements developed for the Mk 50, but have a less expensive and more conventional fuel and propulsion system. I have run across Mk 54 descriptions which more or less described it as marrying the seeker from a Mk 50 to the propulsion system of the Mk 46, though the Mk 54 torpedoe body does appear to be the same as the Mk 50.
TBH when I read the RAN page which appeared to indicate that the MU-90 was to arm the Hunter-class frigates, I was a little surprised. I had thought that the RAN was going to quietly retire the torpedoe once the Hobart-class DDG's either started to decommission, or else if/when the class underwent a MLU where the LWT and associated systems could be changed out to something else.
Well I think its something that will be continually looked at. Integration costs on new platforms will continue to be an ongoing cost.
As I see it. The problem Australia has is there is plenty of deep water that we operate in, even in littorals and choke points. Any submarine that is capable of getting to Australia on patrol, is probably one hell of a capable submarine. So probably SSN. The US has SSN to hunt SSNs, so even a carrier group or where ever, they aren't in quite the same need for defending off frigates in the same way Australia is. The MU90 filled that niche that enemy could use to basically operate basically immune.
Now that Australia will have more and more capable submarines, maybe that is less of a problem. Maybe there are other things in the UUV or other space (smart mines) that also negate that. Mogami for example has significant drone and UAV/USV/UUV capability.
The item cost of the MU90 is a minor issue. It is dwarfed by the integration cost, and even more by the integration lag. Spending money is fine if you actually get capability, but if it take 5-10 years to get IOC every time you update, you may not get many operational years out of that weapon system. I think its unlikely to be integrated on the new GPF. Between the Hunters and the Hobarts, SSN, niche capability is filled.
Firing MU90's at UUV's may make the item cost more of an issue. But now there are sovereign build issues, cost tends to be less of a factor when there are aussie jobs and aussie capabilities involved.
Japan has a much more complex and pressing submarine problem than Australia has. Its a much bigger fleet, and probably the most ASW focused fleet in world.
I think we should keep an open mind. I think we should be flexible about what is ruled in and out, until it actually FOC. How many defence projects (not just Australian) die on the way to FOC. The RAN is in a transformative phase right now, and new acquisitions and technologies will continue to change the landscape.
MU90 should have greater speed at high depths. Which is a particular problem if you are trying to chase down fairly deep diving and capable SSN with surface assets and getting a firing solution from those platforms. Less of an issue with airborne launch platforms, or when you have SSN in that space. I also believe they should make excellent (but expensive) seamines.
I suspect the Japanese make it so they can fire most US weapons, as well as their own (which are usually heavily based on US designs and protocols). But we don't know for sure, because Japan doesn't export complex military platforms. That also may not mean, complete integration, perhaps just wartime level compatibility to fire the thing, not full integration, testing, etc. There are levels of integration.
If we lock up Lombok and Malacca straights, then the obvious routes for submarine in a fast pass south of Australia. We apparently used to tag soviet subs doing runs down their, I suspect MU90 may have had that mission in mind. With China I don't know how relevant that is anymore.
I'm not sure why this has digressed to a specific torpedo discussion, but it does illustrates that this topic of using AU/existing equipment versus onboarding a foreign equipment/attendent maintenance and training has to be considered for vast variety of sub-systems, whether torpedoes or radars or even firefighting kit.
There are no straightforward answer (any that fits within the constraints of public discussion, anyway). There will be some kit that needs to be AU specific regardless of who we choose (e.g COMSEC gear) , there will be some kit where the winning party might have some unique advantages that we decide it is worth adopting and there are those that fall in the middle where we need to carefully assess the risks versus the benefits (e.g our torpedo discussion)
What we can only hope is the Powers that Be and the eventual PMO has a structured process to assess and determine, based on risk, cost and sustainability so it does not end up as a clusterf*ck to trying to please everyone.
There are no straightforward answer (any that fits within the constraints of public discussion, anyway). There will be some kit that needs to be AU specific regardless of who we choose (e.g COMSEC gear) , there will be some kit where the winning party might have some unique advantages that we decide it is worth adopting and there are those that fall in the middle where we need to carefully assess the risks versus the benefits (e.g our torpedo discussion)
What we can only hope is the Powers that Be and the eventual PMO has a structured process to assess and determine, based on risk, cost and sustainability so it does not end up as a clusterf*ck to trying to please everyone.
Risk is an interesting beast, I assume they are talking technical risk and not project risk.
The technical complexity of incorporating CEAFAR and SAAB CMS is greater than staying with a combination already integrated a selected design. This is a technical risk, that if not mitigated appropriately, i.e. by the application of suitable resources, could easily manifest as an impact on schedule.
However, not switching to the proven in service systems the RAN and sustainment are already supporting, introduces new technical and schedule risk.
There is an attitude that ILS "just happens". It doesn't, it is in many ways more complex and resource intensive than design and build. Introducing new systems dramatically increases the load in this area.
It's not just parts, spares, manuals etc. it's workforce planning, training and the ongoing, through life impacts of supporting systems through life.
The only people whose lives get easier are the project managers and project directors, because it moves the complexity and technical risk from the front end, to through life.
It basically means, instead of doing it properly upfront, we will have an even more risky, complex and expensive upgrade program later.
They are modular, scalable radars that are fully integrated with SAAB 9Lv CMS. Most of the load would be on SAAB to integrate their CMS into the platform.
Look at what they are doing with the Hobart's, SAAB is adapting 9Lv as an interface to sit on top of AEGIS and more easily integrate everything else.